Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Building Licences, Harlow

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many building licences have been issued up-to-date for factories to be built in Harlow new town; and what is the total number of male and female workers respectively that it is anticipated these factories will employ.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): Seven building licences have been issued and a further one is about to be issued. These eight factories will employ approximately 325 men and 295 women.

Mr. Nigel Davies: Is this not rather a strange proportion? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that with the families coming to the new towns there will be an equal number of female workers and male workers, and is not this a rather bad pattern?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The hon. Member has evidently overlooked the fact that in the initial stages quite a substantial allocation of houses built will be occupied by building trade workers and that they will rectify the balance.

Basildon (Population)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the total population now envisaged for the new town of Basildon.

Mr. Lindgren: I cannot give a definite figure until the development corporation's draft plan has been received and considered.

Mr. Braine: In view of the fact that the development corporation want a total population of 80,000, can the hon. Gentleman say when a decision can be given on this point?

Mr. Lindgren: First we ascertain the facts, and on the basis of those ascertained facts we come to conclusions and decisions, and I recommend the hon. Gentleman to do the same.

Caravans, Hounslow

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, failing the provision of alternative accommodation by the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council, he will permit the continued occupation of the caravans at Rose Farm, Hounslow.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the hardship that will be inflicted upon 30 people who will be compulsorily removed from a site which has been used for camping purposes for 25 years?

Mr. Lindgren: I do not accept the latter part of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend. This was a site wrongly used. An application for planning permission was refused by the local authority and, after an inquiry, that refusal was supported by my right hon. Friend. So far as the people on the site are concerned, I am certain that Middlesex County Council and Heston and Isle-worth Urban District Council will show every consideration and sympathy.

Statute (Financial Provisions)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the concern about the working of Parts V, VI and VII of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, he will consider the appointment of an expert committee to reconsider the financial provisions of the Act in the light of the experience gained.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Colonel Hutchison: Do the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend recognise that protests from most influential bodies in this country have already been made pointing out that the


present system is a deterrent to development, and does not that in any way weigh with him and his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. I do not accept that they were protests. We were very grateful to such bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute who, after having seen the Act in operation, have given their considered opinion. Their opinion is examined in the light of circumstances, and changes are made as and when necessary.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does that mean that the Minister is contemplating legislation to put right some of the admitted anomalies of the Act, or are we to continue indefinitely as we are?

Mr. Lindgren: As far as small matters are concerned, evidence has been given by my right hon Friend in the Regulations he has introduced. As to radical alterations, the present Parliamentary situation does not allow them to be made.

Mr. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend recognise that concern with the financial provisions of the Act is merely a repetition of the objection to the fundamentals of the Measure experienced when the Bill was passing through the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Benefits (Assessment)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many persons, at the latest convenient date, were receiving benefits from her Department which were determined by joint considerations arising from the needs of the applicant and a means test.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): No payments of this kind are made by my Department.

Old Age Pensioners

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she is aware of the plight of old age pensioners, particularly of those who are too old to do any work, on account of the increase in the cost of living; and what steps she proposes to take with a view to assisting such old age pensioners to overcome their difficulties.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on this subject on 17th October last, a copy of which I am sending him.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the plight of these old age pensioners is on a very different scale from that of practically everyone else suffering from the effects of the cost of living? Is it not possible to make some arrangement whereby old age pensioners might get necessaries at lower prices?

Dr. Summerskill: I nave said before that the officials of the National Assistance Board would welcome the application of any old age pensioner who feels he is suffering from hardship, and I am sure that any investigation made will be done in a kindly and courteous fashion.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she is satisfied that the scale rates of the National Assistance Board are sufficient to meet the high cost of light and heat in rural areas that have to rely on oil and coal; and whether an additional allowance can be made in such areas in the case of old age pensioners living alone.

Dr. Summerskill: I have no reason to believe that persons in rural areas find living more expensive than persons in towns; but where individual circumstances necessitate exceptional expenditure on light and heat, the Board's officers can take this into account in awarding assistance.

Mr. Wilson: Does that mean that the Minister will give discretion to her assistance officers to give an extra winter allowance, as they did before the war? Is the Minister aware that in rural areas a merchant is not prepared to deliver coal or oil in very small quantities, and at the present time an old age pensioner living alone is frequently spending the whole of the week's allowance on a single delivery of coal, and there is nothing left for food?

Dr. Summerskill: The officers of the Board are enabled to give an extra allowance in cases where it is considered necessary to old age pensioners living in either the town or country.

Mr. Maclay: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps are taken


to bring to the attention of old age pensioners those additional benefits for which they may be eligible on application to the Assistance Board or elsewhere.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 18 and 19 of the National Assistance Board's Report for 1949 which contains a description of the steps taken to this end.

Mr. Maclay: But does the Minister realise, in spite of the pamphlets which have been published, that particularly in country districts and scattered areas there are many old people who simply do not know for what they are entitled to make application?

Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that, and that is why I have given instructions that a reference to national assistance shall be included in the retirement pension order books of the pensioners.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not time that the Government made up their minds to give a substantial increase in the allowance to old age pensioners, as they are suffering the biggest hardship of all the population?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will arrange for all old age pensioners to receive a double pension in the week preceding Christmas.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his similar Question on 18th July.

Mr. Lewis: Could the Minister say how much it would cost to implement the suggestion contained in the Question, and how much increased contribution per week it would cost to make this an annual event?

Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of the question is £5,250,000, and as to the second part, I must have notice of that question.

Seasonal Workers

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will amend the Seasonal Workers' Regulations, 1950, so that disabled ex-Service men unable to get work in the winter through no fault of their own do not have to pay contributions without receiving unemployment benefit.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether a registered disabled person genuinely seeking employment throughout the year is included by her regulations in the category of seasonal workers;
(2) whether under her regulations a person genuinely seeking, but unable to obtain, work during the off-season, can claim unemployment benefit.

Dr. Summerskill: The interpretation of these regulations is a matter for the statutory authorities, but one of the main objects was to give those authorities greater freedom to consider the merits of each individual case than they had under the previous regulations.

Mr. Spearman: Would the Minister bear in mind that in the seaside resorts there is a large proportion of temporary jobs available for ex-Service men, and can she take steps to see that they are not prevented from taking those jobs for part of the year by being penalised in getting no benefits out of season?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member will realise that in the case of disabled ex-Service men, circumstances vary, and under these regulations the authorities are able to take into account the different circumstances and judge each case on its merits.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of National Insurance why the agricultural workers in the Boston area who have received unemployment benefit in previous years, have this year been refused unemployment insurance on the grounds that they are seasonal workers.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 6 to 8 and 28 to 30 of the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report on benefit conditions for seasonal workers laid before this House as Paper No. 262 of 1949. I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking the right hon. Lady, may I ask what steps she is taking to make known to these workers why they are in a worse position this year than on a previous occasion?

Dr. Summerskill: I have already explained that each case is considered on its merits, and if any contributors feel


aggrieved, all they have to do is to make their grievance known and their case will be considered.

Mr. McCorquodale: As the Minister must be aware that there is a considerable amount of apprehension over the whole of this question, will she give consideration to it and make sure that people are not penalised unduly?

Dr. Summerskill: We are watching it carefully, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the representatives of the workers were consulted at every stage.

Mr. John Hay: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the confusion caused by the introduction of the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1220) in a form which made it out of order for honourable Members to pray to annul, she will introduce new Regulations without delay.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of National Insurance when she proposes to introduce new regulations regarding the receipt of unemployment benefit for seasonal workers.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of National Insurance what action His Majesty's Government propose to take about the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations set out in S.I., 1950, No. 1220.

Dr. Summerskill: I am advised that the regulations made on 25th July, 1950, have full force and effect, and no question of making new ones arises. But in order to comply with your Ruling, Sir, I hope shortly to lay a revised Statutory Instrument embodying those parts of the regulations not already directly approved by the House on 12th July.

Mr. Hay: Can the right hon. Lady say what is to be the position of seasonal workers in the meantime until this new regulation is made, since I understand they are now prevented from drawing their unemployment pay?

Dr. Summerskill: All parts of the regulation which call for affirmative resolution stand.

Mr. Taylor: When this regulation came before the House last week, we urged that the matter might be considered by the Government to see whether it would be possible to correlate the whole of the regulations in one statutory instrument; would that not be possible?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have been in the House last July when these regulations were approved. They went by "on the nod" because there was nobody there to challenge them.

Mr. Taylor: As there are something like 500 or 600 regulations coming out each week, it is rather difficult to see that every single regulation is looked at.

Dismissed Employee, Gateshead

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of National Insurance why Mr. Thomas Kain, Moorfoot Gardens, Lobley Hill, Gateshead, has been disqualified from unemployment benefit following his dismissal by the Gateshead Corporation.

Dr. Summerskill: As this case is at present before the local appeal tribunal I cannot comment on it. I will write to the hon. Member when I know the tribunal's decision.

Mr. Macdonald: May I ask the right hon. Lady why Mr. Kain cannot be paid his unemployment benefit immediately provided he agrees to pay his dues—

Mr. Speaker: The case is sub judice. Therefore, the hon. Member cannot ask that it should be done at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PRICES INDEX

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the House a formula which will enable comparison to be made between the interim index of retail prices and the old cost-of-living index which it replaced.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The former cost-of-living index was calculated with reference to living habits of 1914, and it was abandoned in 1947 because this limited and out-of-date basis had ceased to be appropriate for the purpose of measuring changes in prices


under current living conditions. The present index is radically different from the former cost-of-living index, both in its scope and in its method of construction, and it is not possible to arrive at satisfactory long-term comparisons of price levels by linking these two indices.

Sir I. Fraser: But does the right hon. Gentleman recall that an earlier Minister of Pensions made a promise that if under the old index the figure reached a certain point, then a rise in the basic rate would be granted? It is therefore a matter of interest and justice for three quarters of a million ex-Service men to have some method of judging whether that promise ought now to be implemented.

Mr. Isaacs: I must plead ignorance of the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will look it up and see if there is anything in that which comes within my jurisdiction.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister try to find a way in which satisfaction can be given in judging the two standards?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a matter which was not brought out in the original Question. I have promised to look into this point raised by the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman, and I must leave it at that.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the new cost-of-living index must also be out of date, as would be any index which shows—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is not asking for information, but expressing an opinion, which is not in order on supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Coal Miners (Call-Up)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of men, including volunteers, who have been called to the Forces during the last five months from the coal mining industry.

Mr. Isaacs: No coalminers have been called up under the National Service Acts except possibly a few unskilled surface workers unwilling to undertake underground work. The precise numbers are not available.

Mr. Fernyhough: Surely there is something wrong with the information of the Minister? Miners have been allowed to volunteer. That is the Question that was asked. In view of the grave statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, does not the Minister think that this is a disastrous policy? Would not these men be serving the best interests of the country by remaining in the coal mines? Are we not making the same mistake that we made twice previously, and will my right hon. Friend not try to use his influence with the Service Ministers to prevent any more men from the mines being called to the Forces?

Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. Friend had looked at his own Question before he made his speech, he would have known that he asked me what numbers have been called to the Forces, not volunteers.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question specifically stated "including volunteers."

Mr. Isaacs: The original question on the Order Paper was "To ask the Minister of Labour, if he will state the number of men who have been called to the Forces during the last five months from the coal mining industry."

Industrial Dispute

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the settlement of the strike at Duples' factory which began on 19th October.

Mr. Isaacs: This dispute has been referred to the National Arbitration Tribunal.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Has the Minister yet any evidence available to him of how many members of the strike committee are acting members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Dorran Aluminium House

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any approach from the manufacturers of the Dorran Aluminium


House; whether this type of house comes up to the required standard; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): At the beginning of this month I received a brochure which did not give the technical details necessary for a full examination of the firm's proposals. On Saturday, however, I received further particulars which are now being examined.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is not it true that no officer of the Minister's Department has been allowed to visit this house? Is it not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to inform himself as fully as may be on this interesting proposition?

Mr. McNeil: I think the hon. Gentleman is making an unwarranted assumption when he suggests that no officer has been allowed to visit this house. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I inform myself as fully as I can as the details are supplied to me, and the latest details only came in on Saturday after an extensive publicity campaign.

Calf Subsidies

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the sum paid out in subsidies to farmers in Scotland under the calf rearing subsidies scheme in each year since it came into operation; and the estimate for 1951.

Applications received
Calves certified
Calves rejected







Steers
Heifers
Steers
Heifers


1st September, 1948–31st March,1949
…
…
…
27,163
39,070
90,000
654
750


1st April, 1949–31st March,1950
…
…
…
61,374
145,525
285,300
2,286
2,080


1st April, 1950–13th November, 1950
…
…
…
…
32,403
59,923
124,935
3,274
2,928







120,940
244,518
500,235
6,214
5,758

Highlands (Development)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for increased home food production and for the earning of foreign currency, he will consider the introduction of legislation for the development of the resources of the Highlands

Mr. McNeil: The amounts paid in subsidies under the Calf Rearing (Scotland) Scheme are as follows: in 1948–49, £426,037; in 1949–50, £1,564,280 and in 1950–51, up to 13th November, £604,262. The estimate for the whole of the 1950–51 financial year is £1,100,000.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for calf subsidy in respect of calves in Scotland were received in 1949 and 1950, respectively; how many were successful; and how many applications were refused on the grounds of quality.

Mr. McNeil: Since the information for which the hon. and gallant Member asks involves a table of figures. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Duncan: Do those figures prove what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said the other day, that there has been improvement in quality?

Mr. McNeil: I can only answer for my own Department, but it will be seen that the rejections are of a very minor kind.

Following is the information:

The following table shows respectively the numbers of calves certified and rejected for each financial year since 1st September, 1948, when the Scheme began to operate:

of Scotland on a scale commensurate with the present Colonial Development Bill.

Mr. McNeil: The programme of Highland Development which was presented to Parliament on 30th June, already includes comprehensive measures to achieve the objects which the noble Lord has in view.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is bearing in mind that the Highlands need, for their urgent requirements, millions of pounds spent on road construction and maintenance? Furthermore, would he agree that the £20 million would have given a better return if spent on the Highlands than on the West African Food Corporation?

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Member had made a study of the proposals for the Highlands he would find that the figure he has just mentioned is doubled.

Police, Glasgow (Administration and Discipline)

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the number of violent crimes in Glasgow, razors, bicycle chains and broken bottles being used; that police officers have been charged with violence against civilians in the cells and streets; that a sergeant returned to duty after being fined; that in a murder trial a constable was proved to have used a stolen car on duty in conspiracy with other officers; that lack of supervision and discipline is evident; and if he will set up an inquiry into the administration and discipline of the force with a view to restoring public confidence while calling a special conference of magistrates, police chiefs, Members for Glasgow and heads of religious denominations to combat on a moral and spiritual basis this wave of violence.

Mr. McNeil: Having given most painstaking attention to this Question, I must affirm that I have no reason to doubt the efficiency of the City of Glasgow Police, nor have I criticism of substance to make on their supervision or their discipline. Nor have I any evidence that they have forfeited the confidence of the citizens of Glasgow. I therefore lack reason to institute any inquiry or to convene any conference of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
Moreover, although I greatly deplore crimes of violence anywhere and, like everyone else, am distressed at their prevalence, I must in fairness add that the number of crimes of violence occurring in Glasgow for the first nine months of this year including those of the kind to which my hon. Friend draws particular attention shows a marked decrease compared to the

same period of last year and the year before that.

Mr. McGovern: Whilst understanding the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman and the probable inconvenience of having an inquiry into police administration, with which I fundamentally disagree, is there any reason why he should not have a conference of the kind suggested in order to try to root out violence in the city which, whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees or not, has reached alarming proportions in a very drastic kind of crime? I myself would take the opportunity to supply the right hon. Gentleman with further evidence of police brutality and hope he will change his mind.

Mr. McNeil: I have every sympathy with the distress and anxiety which my hon. Friend is displaying, but I would not think I was furthering the control of crime in Glasgow if I seemed to censure the Glasgow police when no such censure is justified. If my hon. Friend has any further information of a precise and corroborative kind I will myself undertake to examine it.

Mr. Carmichael: While I am at one with my hon. Friend in his desire completely to wipe out violence in Glasgow, may I ask my right hon. Friend if, with his own knowledge and the knowledge of the facts at the Scottish Office, he is not bound to admit that the people of Glasgow compare favourably with the people in any other part of the country?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I not only share with my hon. Friend great affection for these people, but also a great respect for them; and I have taken care to point out that these figures show there has been a diminution in violence offences this year.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. There is rather an important point in this Question upon which I would like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety or otherwise of it. The Question states:
… in a murder trial a constable was proved to have used a stolen car on duty in conspiracy with other officers;
We do not know at this stage whether, in fact, there is an appeal pending against the death penalty; and although it has been said that an inquiry is proceeding in the City of Glasgow as to the conduct


of one of the police officers in connection with the man found guilty of this crime, the point I wish to raise is whether at this stage of both the trial and the inquiry now proceeding into the conduct of the guilty police officer it is in order to place a sentence on the Order Paper which assumes that there will be no appeal; and assumes that officers have been found guilty of conspiring in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: It is impossible for the Table to know all the facts of everything. The hon. Member who puts down a Question must, of course, be responsible for the facts. If eventually it turns out that there is an appeal, then, of course, it would be out of order, but we have no means of judging at the moment.

Mr. McGovern: May I reply by saying that I have satisfied myself that I was taking the proper line? Even according to the Crown officers the stealing of the car and the using of the car was admitted at the trial and there can only be an appeal against the murder sentence. It certainly was admitted that the car was stolen and used.

Mr. McNeil: I do not disagree at all with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but just in case there should be further publicity I would say that there is, of course, no evidence of conspiracy.

Mr. John Henderson: May I ask the Secretary of State if he is aware that his decision to have no inquiry will give the citizens of Glasgow great satisfaction, and will dispel from their minds some anxiety which has been created by the publicity which this question has received in the Scottish Press?

Mr. McGovern: On a point of order. May I give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will try to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity? I would also ask the Secretary of State to remember the graft trial in which everybody assured us that everything was all right, but several magistrates were arrested shortly afterwards.

Factories (Fumes)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now decided to introduce further legislation for Scotland to prohibit

the harmful discharge of fluorine fumes from factories.

Mr. McNeil: I hope to introduce at an early date a Bill to amend the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act, 1906, in its application to Scotland.

Maternity Unit, Fort William

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the maternity unit in Belfort Hospital, Fort William, is not in use.

Mr. McNeil: The hospital authorities have not yet been able to provide accommodation for the nursing staff required, but they are doing their utmost to make temporary arrangements for this purpose.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this shortage of accommodation applies to any other hospital in Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I know of other hospitals where there is quite a marked shortage of accommodation for nurses.

Hot Meals (Old People)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider supplying hot meals from schools kitchens to old people, distribution to be undertaken by voluntary organisations.

Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the suggestion contained in his Question. I am considering whether any existing powers can be exercised to make provision for a service of this nature.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the fact that in Fife at least, and certainly I think in other parts of the country, there is a widespread desire on the part of the voluntary organisations to implement this suggestion, will the right hon. Gentleman when he considers the matter apply speed, sympathy and commonsense to it?

Mr. McNeil: I promise my sympathy. I am very attracted to an obviously good idea, and I shall apply all the energy I can.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In considering this matter, as he has promised to do, will the right hon. Gentleman take into


special consideration the scheme precisely on those lines now submitted by the Fife County Council which they would operate themselves?

Mr. McNeil: This is a matter of arrangement. It is true that the Fife County Council has passed a scheme of this kind but, as my hon. Friend has indicated, I think by inference, there may be an easier way of operating it than directly through the county. Providing the machinery is utilised, I am sure everyone will be happy.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such a scheme has been operating for the past two years by local authorities plus voluntary labour all round Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir, I would be delighted to have details confirming this.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disabled Persons (Vehicles)

Mr. E. Martin Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will ensure that adequate supplies of spare parts are available for the repair of mechanically-propelled vehicles used by disabled persons.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): Yes, Sir, so far as vehicles which I supply to war pensioners and Health Service patients are concerned. There should be no difficulty in obtaining spare parts for their repair.

Mr. E. Martin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep this well in mind, as I have cases where disabled men have had to wait several weeks, and in certain cases up to six months? As they are completely disabled it is a matter of the gravest importance.

Mr. Marquand: My information is that there has been a delay in regard to one type, but that has been put right. If the hon. Member has other information I hope he will supply me with it.

Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister aware that there is, in fact, great delay and that he has a case which I have called to his attention, and which I hope he is examining? A great deal of the delay is because many of the vehicles are so antiquated and out of date that repairs become very difficult. Will he not give

his attention to increasing the provision of new vehicles?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The output of new vehicles is increasing rapidly.

War Pensions (Review)

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will institute a review of anomalies in war pensions and allowances, and give an assurance that the position of the ageing badly disabled men of the 1914–18 war and their widows will receive special attention.

Mr. Marquand: The provisions of the pension code are under constant review and disabled men and their widows receive the most sympathetic consideration under those provisions. Pensions and allowances are adjusted as closely as possible to the needs of the individual. The hon. Member will find in my Twenty-fifth Report, to be published tomorrow, full information of the special help that has been given to pensioners of the 1914–18 War and an up-to-date statement of the position of war widows.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Is the Minister aware that another review, and an up-to-date review, is timely in relation to this particular anomaly; and will he take steps to see that this review is made at once in order to give effect to the present cost of living as it affects pensioners?

Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of any anomalies, and I fail to see what relation that could have to the cost of living if there were any.

Earl Winterton: In view of what the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) said in his supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to listen to an appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and myself on more than one occasion in the last Parliament for a committee of inquiry into this matter which becomes more urgent every day?

Mr. Marquand: A committee of inquiry would save no time; they would only take up time. As I have frequently said, we have this matter under constant review and the figures show a continued improvement.

Assessment Appeals

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the normal delay between the notice of appeal against a pension assessment and the completion of the statement of the case by his Department.

Mr. Marquand: Normally about 13 weeks.

Mr. Low: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why in the case of one of my constituent the delay was well over eight months? Does he not agree that this operates with great hardship on the appellant, and, bearing in mind that the Ministry have had the facts of the case since 1945, how can the Minister justify the delay of that length?

Mr. Marquand: The particular case to which the hon. Member refers, which he has not mentioned in the Question, was a very unusual one, in which the appellant, after sending in his appeal, mentioned other disabilities. He was admitted to hospital for investigation and was there for 3½ weeks. Later, he said that he was suffering from yet another disease, for which he had to have a blood test and an examination by a tropical diseases specialist. Of course, in a case like that, if we are to be fair to the man, time must be taken in examining all the particulars.

Disability and Widows' Pensions

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will increase disability and widows' pensions, in view of the rising cost of living and increases in Service pay.

Mr. Marquand: I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), on 17th October.

Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that the cost of living has gone up since the rates of these pensions were fixed, and is it the policy of the Government to continue pensions as at present while the cost of living rises?

Mr. Marquand: The hon. and gallant Member—I say this with respect and in no way offensively—was not in the last

Parliament and, therefore, may not be fully aware of the very large increases which have been made in the pensions and allowances of those who have to live on their pensions and allowances. The great mass of pensioners do not have to live on their pensions and, therefore, the cost of living is only one among many considerations to be taken into account.

Mr. Bossom: Can pensioners get this additional allowance without going through a means test?

Mr. Marquand: Oh, yes. Many of these additional allowances have nothing whatever to do with the recipient's other sources of income.

Sir I. Fraser: When the Minister speaks of these men having to live on their pensions, is he implying that the basic war pension is given for any other reason than a medical assessment of the injury?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. I am not implying any such connection, but that aspect seemed to be in the minds of hon. Members and I felt it necessary to clear up the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Troops, Korea (Winter Clothing)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if special cold-weather clothing has now been issued to all the British troops in Korea.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether all British troops in Korea are now in possession of suitable winter clothing; and when this reached the forward troops.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): As the House knows, two separate British formations are now in Korea. The 29th Brigade Group was formed in this country for the Korean campaign and was most carefully equipped, not only with supporting weapons and transport, but with protective winter clothing. I inspected this clothing at Colchester on 25th September before the Brigade left and I can assure the House that it contained as complete a range of garments designed to protect the wearer against sub-zero temperatures as the ingenuity of our specialists can devise.
Some of the principal garments were woollen underclothes, heavy woollen socks and jerseys, leather jerkins, lined rubber boots, leather gauntlets, windproof smocks and trousers, and kapok coats. This clothing went to Korea with the 29th Brigade and is being issued to units as they arrive. The 29th Brigade is, therefore, fully equipped and there is no question of relying on American supplies of protective winter clothing.
The other Commonwealth formation in Korea, the 27th Brigade, contains two British battalions, the 1st Middlesex and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. As the House knows, these two battalions were sent to Korea from Hong Kong on 26th August at the urgent request of the Commander of the United Nations forces. The American authorities accepted the fact that these battalions could only be sent if their maintenance with stores and equipment, other than ammunition, but including winter clothing, could be provided from American sources. The American authorities accepted this responsibility and I have no doubt have discharged it to the very best of their ability.
On 25th August they informed us they might require help with winter clothing from us. Additional British winter clothing, originally intended as a reserve stock for 29th Brigade, arrived in Korea on 3rd and 8th November, and this clothing has, of course, been available to meet the needs of 27th Brigade. Finally, full stocks of British winter clothing, specifically provided for 27th Brigade, were sent from this country on 4th October and these have now arrived in Korea.
The House can, therefore, be assured that ample supplies of protective winter clothing of both British and American pattern are available in Korea for both 29th and 27th Brigade. But this does not mean that there may not have been difficulties during the past two weeks in issuing all the items of winter clothing to units taking part in the operations in Northern Korea. I understand that there have been very great problems in supplying units engaged in these operations, many of which have had to be supplied by air. Thus the reports, which I have read with great concern, of the slow arrival of particular items of winter clothing to units of 27th Brigade, must be the result of these supply difficulties to the advanced units. I can assure the

House that our commanding officers in Korea will make the utmost endeavour to see that every man in the front line gets every item of winter clothing which he so urgently needs. We have received no representations on the subject from our Commanders in the field. There is not the slightest doubt that ample stocks of the clothing are available in Korea.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very full and clear reply, may I ask if he can explain the reasons behind the delay and difficulty in supplying clothes and getting them actually issued to the Argylls and to the Middlesex? He said that they had been available in Korea since certain dates. Has there been any misunderstanding with the Americans about the necessary air-lift?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I do not think there has been a misunderstanding. I think that the difficulties have been the physical ones of reaching the troops in the front line with their clothing, which had to compete in priority with ammunition, food, and all the other supplies which were going over very heavily burdened supply lines.

Mr. Low: Taking full account of what the Minister has said, is it not really very unsatisfactory that the Minister of Defence should, no doubt unwittingly, have misinformed the House on Wednesday last when he said that the front line troops had already been provided "with what is required"; is it not clear from what the Minister has just said, and from the reports which appeared in the Press on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, that the front line troops were not provided at that time, and will the right hon. Gentleman further explain why the Australian battalion of the 27th Brigade was provided much earlier with heavy winter clothing, whereas the British battalions were not, even although the time available was probably the same?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree at all that my right hon. Friend misled the House in this respect. If hon. Members want an impartial witness of what has reached the troops in the front line, I quote from today's issue of the "Daily Express," in which—[Interruption.] I call it an impartial witness, but I think I am giving hon. Members opposite something on that. Their correspondent with the forces


in Korea begins his despatch in these words:
I do not think you people at home need worry about the winter equipment of this 27th Brigade. We look as if we were going to the Pole with Shackleton or Scott.
If there were delays earlier in bringing up the equipment, as there may have been—it is quite possible—I suggest that it was because of the difficulties of all the supplies to these men in the front line.

Brigadier Medlicott: Does the Minister recall that in the late war a very great quantity of supplementary clothing of this kind was provided, and very admirably provided, by voluntary sources working through the county territorial associations and the Director of Welfare. In view of the possibilities of a great increase in demand, is any machinery of that kind in contemplation, having regard to its proved usefulness in the last war?

Mr. Strachey: We would not wish to rely on voluntary efforts, however well intentioned, although we should welcome them. This clothing is for the Korean climate. Very special protective clothing is needed, and has been most carefully provided.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up one point which I did not quite follow? What was the date when these supplies from Britain arrived? The right hon. Gentleman talked about delay in getting things up the line—we can all understand that—but when did this material actually arrive in Korea?

Mr. Strachey: The first part of it arrived when the 29th Brigade arrived. It came from the same ships.

Mr. Eden: On what date?

Mr. Strachey: I have not that date, but the second lot arrived on 3rd and 8th November and a third lot arrived three days ago.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand from the statement of my right hon. Friend that supplies for the British troops in Korea are dependent on stocks being sent from this country, and, if so, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that adequate reserves of winter clothing and other personal equipment are now on the spot in Korea?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I repeat, as I said in my main answer, that there is not the slightest doubt that ample stocks of clothing are now available in Korea.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear, as I am sure he will, one very important constitutional point? He spoke of the Americans having taken responsibility for the supply of clothing, food and equipment, but will he make it quite clear that while that may be an arrangement between him and the American Command, he, and he alone, is responsible to this House for the welfare of the British troops? This is a very important point.

Mr. Strachey: What I am responsible for as a member of the Government is having made the arrangements in respect of those two battalions—not in respect, of course, of the whole force of the 29th Brigade, but of those two battalions—which were sent from Hong Kong. We made the arrangements with the Americans that, as a condition of complying with their very urgent request to send those battalions, those two battalions, and they alone, must be supplied, except for ammunition, from American sources, and we take the responsibility for making that arrangement.

Rest Camps, Korea

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that rest camps and leave centres for British soldiers serving in Korea will be opened in Japan as operational circumstances permit; and what currency will be available to them for spending during such leave.

Mr. Strachey: I have asked the Commander of the United Kingdom forces in Korea for his recommendations on this question.

Territorial Army Strength

Wing Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War the present strength of the Territorial Army; and how many are tabbed and will therefore not be embodied in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Strachey: The strength of the Territorial Army, including women's services, on 31st October, 1950, was 11,152 officers and 98,292 other ranks. A revised


scheme of tabbing is in progress and will not be completed until February, 1951. I cannot, therefore, say how many members are tabbed as not available for embodiment.

Wing Commander Hulbert: When giving these figures, would the right hon. Gentleman make an effort to give the true figure—I do not say that offensively—so that commanding officers of units may know, in the event of embodiment, how many men will be lost through the tabbing scheme?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that it is most important to get accurate figures, and that is the purpose of this revised process of tabbing.

Class Z Reservists

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Class Z Reservists engaged in agriculture have been called up since 1st May, 1950.

Mr. Strachey: No Class Z Reservists, whether engaged in agriculture or not, have been recalled since 1st May or at any other time.

Forces, Germany (Christmas Leave)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Secretary of State for War what special arrangements he is making for Christmas leave to be granted to soldiers in Germany who would have been home on demobilisation but for the extension of military service by a further six months.

Mr. Strachey: The number of soldiers who can be granted home leave from Germany at any one time is dependent on the number who can be spared and the number of passenger vacancies which are available. In granting Christmas leave, I think it would be wrong to discriminate between the soldiers in question and their comrades in Germany.

Tanks (Sale to Egypt)

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Centurion tanks which have been sold to Egypt have yet been delivered to the Egyptian Government; and, if not, whether they are still in the United Kingdom, in transit or in the British Ordnance depot in the Canal Zone.

Mr. Strachey: These tanks are still in the United Kingdom.

Mr. de Chair: Is it not somewhat unusual that a country which considers itself entitled to denounce a treaty with ourselves, should also feel itself entitled to the delivery of our latest military equipment?

Mr. Speaker: The Question asked about Centurion tanks and not about the treaty.

BRITISH SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is now in a position to make any further statement on the prospects of establishing a National Science Centre in London.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware of the handicaps imposed on science by the lack of suitable accommodation for the leading national scientific organisations in London; and whether, in view of the importance of scientific contributions, the Government will help to improve the situation.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am glad to say that since this matter was raised on 5th May last by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), it has been possible to overcome the remaining obstacles for the adoption of the long-term proposals originated by the Royal Society for a British Science Centre in London. To prevent any misunderstanding I must emphasise that it will be some years yet before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works can build such a centre, but a start will be made on it as soon as resources can be found, having regard to other urgent claims. Provision will be made for accommodating within the area the Patent Office and its Library, which will be modernised and extended as a first-rate central reference library on science and technology.
Suitable new quarters will be built for the Royal Society and for other leading scientific societies with their important special libraries, most of which are now severely cramped in the rooms provided for them by the Government not far short of 100 years ago in Burlington House, or in other inadequate accommodation. New offices for the Department


of Scientific and Industrial Research and other Government scientific organisations will also be provided. By this means buildings elsewhere will be released for other uses, and some economies in building requirements will be achieved.
The Centre will be designed to improve facilities and contacts between scientists and users of science, both nationally and internationally. Much detailed planning remains to be done, but it may be convenient for the many interests affected to have this preliminary advance statement. I hope to announce the selection of a site as early as possible in the New Year, but it will be some time yet before a final scheme can be developed.

Mr. Philips Price: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his answer will give great satisfaction to scientific societies throughout the country, and the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Amusement Equipment

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Lord President of the Council if Festival Gardens Limited have considered for inclusion in the Festival Pleasure Gardens the fun-fair ride, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Member has informed me that the Manager of Festival Gardens Limited is already considering the inclusion of this item in the Festival Pleasure Gardens. I really have no right to intervene in this correspondence about the business operations of a commercial company, and I must ask the House to be so good as not to expect me to answer this type of Question in future.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the point of the Question is that a firm of manufacturers in Congleton has been exporting this equipment to the United States, and does he not think it is absurd that he should spend dollars when this equipment is available in Britain? Further, why is it that, since the Question was tabled, his representative, the Festival

Manager, has been to Congleton and reported favourably on the equipment?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am not going to know about it, either. This thing must run, and people must get on with their work. I really cannot be answerable to the House on every detail of a series of Questions which are becoming a little more numerous than is necessary.

Parliamentary Committee (Report)

Mr. Garner-Evans: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a Question of which I have given you Private Notice, namely, if any report has yet been made by the Parliamentary Supervisory Committee on the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Supervisory Committee (Festival of Britain) have made two reports to me. These reports recommended that the following suggestions for enabling a full part to be played by our Parliamentary institutions in the Festival of Britain should be accepted:

(a) An exhibition on the history of Parliament should be held in the Grand Committee Room. This exhibition would consist of seven sections dealing with:

(i) The Sovereign; (ii) functions of Parliament; (iii) House of Lords; (iv) House of Commons (century by century); (v) Officers of Parliament; (vi) Parliament and the public (the story of HANSARD); (vii) Influence of Parliament overseas. The exhibition is estimated to cost between £12,500 and £17,500. The maximum attendance will be 1,500 persons daily.

(b) An ancillary exhibition showing how the British common law has influenced the growth of the modern democratic State should be held in the Journal Office.
(c) Special arrangements should be made during the Whitsun and Summer Recesses of 1951 for the Palace of Westminster to be open to visitors on Fridays as well as Saturdays.
(d) The Ministers of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland should be asked to see whether local


education authorities could utilise the Festival of Britain year to interest children in the history and achievements of Parliament.

The Committee considered but rejected the following suggestions:

(a) That an appeal should be made to Peers and Members of the House of Commons to act as guides on private days to parties of not more than 30 visitors;
(b) that teas on the Terrace be served to visitors during the Recess and that such visitors should be required to pay for their own teas.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with me in thanking the Committee for the promptness and efficiency with which they have reported.

Mr. Rankin: Will any place be given in that historical review to the part which the development of Scottish Parliamentary tradition had played in the development of the general British tradition, and, also, will the Stone of Destiny be on view at that exhibition?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I am not in a position to answer any questions about this. All I have done is to inform the House of the report which I have received, and if they want to ask further questions they must put them down to those who will be responsible.

Sir Ian Fraser: To whom are we to put them down, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the large number of people who will be visiting this building and the need for making known our democratic institutions, would you, Sir, consider the question of establishing a much larger stall in St. Stephen's Chapel for the sale of our literature than we have at the present time for that purpose?

Mr. Speaker: No doubt, that can be considered. I will bear it in mind, so far as I am responsible.

Mr. George Thomas: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you were reading out to us decisions and not recommendations, and that the House will not discuss the nature of the proposals?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am concerned, I do not know. That is a matter for the Government and not for me. I have merely reported to the House what the Committee have reported to me.

Earl Winterton: Arising out of the questions which have been asked, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that we were not an executive committee but a supervisory committee who were asked to consider proposals put forward by the executive committee? As my colleagues and I tactfully made it clear in the report, we cannot take responsibility whether you, Sir, and the Lord President of the Council do or do not accept our recommendations. It is for the Government to say.

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true. The committee over which the noble Lord presided made recommendations. The noble Lord cannot lay down that they shall be accepted. That will be a matter for the Government who will, no doubt, consider them and who will accept or reject them according to their merit.

Sir I. Fraser: May I ask for what purpose the £17,500 required for the provision of the exhibition within this House, will be provided?

Mr. Eden: As a matter of interest, could I ask what happens next?

Mr. H. Morrison: My answer is the same as yours, Mr. Speaker—that I do not know. I have no doubt that the Committee, which is ably presided over by the noble Lord, will be meeting again from time to time and will take note of the observations that have been made.

Mr. Eden: Does not somebody do something about the recommendations?

Mr. Morrison: As far as implementation is concerned, as hon. Members know, in anything connected with this House there are a host of authorities and I have no particular right to interfere with physical things in the Palace of Westminster. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is in it and so are other people. As far as the Government are concerned, the only thing I can answer for, in so far as Mr. Speaker reports the Committee's recommendations and the House has either done nothing to upset it or has not been able to do anything to upset it, we shall pay attention to the recommendations of the Committee appointed by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the Committee were informed that whatever recommendations were decided upon by the executive would be carried out by the Ministry of Works under the Ministry of Works' Vote, and that neither the Committee nor the executive had any financial responsibility at all?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Would the Lord President, at an early date, oblige us by letting us know what Minister will take Questions on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I do not promise that I shall answer, but I will look into it to see if I can answer.

Mr. Blackburn: Would not the appropriate procedure be for a Motion to be tabled by the Lord President, or the Minister of Works, approving of the Committee's report, which would enable this House to debate the matter, in case anybody does want to offer his views?

Mr. Morrison: I think the House will solve the problem as we go on. If the whole lot of us try to debate and settle this matter in detail it will not be satisfactory. It is an excellent committee; it has an admirable chairman, and we all have great confidence in the members. As I have often said before, let us see how we go.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: In view of the fact that the committee that has reported has no power to act, and the power of action is spread over several authorities, would the Lord President consider the possibility of setting up some co-ordinating authority in order that effective action can be arranged and reported, accordingly, to this House?

Mr. Morrison: In effect, the committee of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is doing the co-ordination, and I do not think we had better set up a co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate the co-ordination committee.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: With respect, I am not talking about the co-ordination of recommendations but the co-ordination of action.

Mr. McGovern: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of

the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: I presume I may take it that is not meant as a vote of censure on the Speaker.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move the necessary amendments to Standing Orders to secure that the time allotted for the answering of oral Questions shall be one hour from the time at which the first question is called.

Mr. H. Morrison: No. Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a number of occasions, Question Time is diminished by Private Business and the presentation of Petitions, and is he also aware that the concession suggested in the Question would not seriously affect the time for Public Business; and, in view of the general feeling of the House in regard to getting Questions answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the right hon. Gentleman really look into the matter again?

Mr. Morrison: I am not at all sure about the general feeling in the House. I know perfectly well what might happen. In a few weeks' time, the House would be grumbling about debates being shortened, and Mr. Speaker has told the House that the remedy is largely in its own hands. We now have Ten Minutes Rule Bills coming along and all sort of things which are the business of the House, and if we cut the time for debates, there would be complaints.

Mr. Keeling: In view of the importance of Scotland and the long time taken to air her grievances, would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving more time for Scottish Questions?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps that Question might more fitly be put down by a Scottish Member.

Hon. Members: Why?

At the end of Questions—

Captain Waterhouse: May I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that although today we have got on very well with Questions, there are still 32 Questions to the Treasury which have not been reached? Would you consider allowing Treasury Questions to take their ordinary turn so that on occasion they may be first on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather a matter of changing our usual custom. There are, of course, a great many more Questions to the Treasury today because we have not reached Treasury Questions as a rule for several days. Therefore, there were 40-odd put down today. Now that we have our different technique with regard to Questions, and particularly supplementary questions, when we are getting through 60 or 70 or more Questions a day, I think there will be no difficulty so long as I am able to control supplementary questions.

Captain Waterhouse: Perhaps, Sir, you will bear the matter in mind so that if you find these Questions are not reached, you will not close your mind to a change?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly keep the matter under review the whole time, but I hope that things will get better now.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Surtax (Salary Deductions)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will decentralise the work on Surtax assessments to local inspectors' offices and consider arranging for deductions to be made from salaries for Surtax along with Pay-As-You-Earn deductions for Income Tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): Decentralisation of Surtax work would involve major changes in organisation which cannot be undertaken without detailed inquiry. The Inland Revenue intend to conduct such an inquiry when circumstances permit, but I cannot regard this as having very high priority at present.
I am not satisfied that a system of deducting Surtax from salary is either necessary or desirable, but I do not wish to prejudge a matter which will be within

the terms of reference of the Royal Commission under Lord Justice Cohen.

Mr. Houghton: While not expecting my right hon. Friend to anticipate his Budget Statement, does he not agree that if there is to be any steep increase in taxation on higher incomes, some system of payment on easy terms will be needed?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think we must leave that sort of question to the Royal Commission.

Married Women (Income Tax)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of Income Tax and Surtax charged on the income of married women which remains uncollected for past years owing to the absence of powers of recovery against the separate estates of the women concerned.

Mr. Gaitskell: About £250,000. Power was taken in this year's Finance Act to recover from a wife from 1950–51 onwards the tax applicable to her own income.

Entertainments Duty

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide a list of those municipal authorities which at the present time have sought and obtained exemption from Entertainments Duty in respect of the theatrical and variety productions provided by them.

Mr. Gaitskell: I regret that this information is not available, and I do not think that the trouble and expense involved in obtaining it would be justified.

Sir T. Moore: Accepting that, is the Chancellor satisfied that requests that are made by local authorities are invariably sympathetically received by his Department?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any case in mind, perhaps he would let me know about it.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Donner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the new financial burdens to be shouldered in the next Budget due to rearmament, he will


now announce cuts in Government expenditure to ease as far as practicable this burden on the nation as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given him on 19th September and 24th October.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the repeated refusal to publish this information underlines the Government's indifference to the hardship caused by over-taxation?

Mr. Gaitskell: My reply was that these were matters which would be considered in connection with the Estimates.

Korean War (Cost)

Mr. Donner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the approximate cost to this country of the Korean war to date.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not in a position as yet to give a reliable estimate.

National Savings Movement

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the National Savings Movement.

Mr. Gaitskell: There are some 185,000 National Savings groups at work with a membership of about 7,000,000. The amount of small savings invested is now just over £6,100 million. In particular the Trustee Savings Banks are this week celebrating the fact that their funds have now reached £1,000 million. I am sure the House will wish to join me in congratulating them on this fine achievement.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the trustee savings movement, may we have an assurance, which I think we should have from him, that he and his Department will do everything they can to advance this splendid movement?

Mr. Gaitskell: Most certainly.

Visitors to Canada (Dollar Allowances)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the light of the improved dollar exchange position, he is prepared to approve dollar

currency allowances for those who wish to visit Canada, other than for purely business purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Dollar currency allowances are provided for medical treatment, for higher education in certain cases, and for personal family visits if there are compassionate or hardship grounds. Applications to visit near relatives are accepted if either party is over 60 or in case of serious illness. I am sorry that it is not yet possible to approve dollar allowances for general personal travel in Canada.

Mr. Amory: While recognising the need to date for the severe, stringent restrictions, may I ask whether the Chancellor does not agree that it is an unhappy situation when the people of this country cannot freely visit and make contacts with the people of one of our great fellow Dominions; and does he not agree that that situation should not persist one day longer than is necessary?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we shall keep this matter continually under review, and, as soon as it is possible to make any relaxation, we shall make it.

Disabled Persons (Employment)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the practice of His Majesty's Government to apply the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, or similar terms, to disabled ex-Service men and women in the employment of the foreign and consular and control commission, and similar services.

Mr. Gaitskell: Section 21 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act restricts its obligations to employment in Great Britain. Government departments conform with this principle and no special arrangements are made to provide employment for disabled persons outside this country.

Sir I. Fraser: Where there is employment for a disabled person in, say, the Consular Service or in Germany at the moment, and a person may come back here or go there again, surely there ought to be continuity, and the spirit of the Act ought to be applied to them?

Mr. Gaitskell: We shall naturally consider sympathetically any cases of that kind. Problems of redundancy are dealt with on well-recognised principles, as the hon. Member knows.

Land, Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that cases are arising where people of extremely limited means are having small plots of land compulsorily purchased under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for sums which are only a fraction of what they originally paid for them; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure immediate compensation for these people instead of the eventual and uncertain compensation provided for under the Act.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware that compensation under a compulsory purchase may fall short of the price originally paid, because development value was, on 1st July, 1948, removed from the hands of private owners. Owners had the right to claim against the £300 million for this loss of development value, and owners of single housing plots which have been compulsorily acquired have been promised, if they have claimed, a payment out of that sum equal to development value. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No."

Mr. Nigel Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can give him an example of a constituent of very limited means who bought a plot of land for over £400 in 1935, and who has been offered £20 by the district valuer; and, in view of the completely doubtful and remote nature of the compensation, does not this amount to virtual confiscation?

Mr. Gaitskell: As I have already explained, in the case of owners of small plots of land, they will be paid 100 per cent. when the £300 million comes to be distributed. [HON. MEMBERS: "When will that be?"] The Act provides that it must begin in 1953.

Sterling Remittances, Brazil

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position with regard to sterling remittances from Brazil.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am informed that the Brazilian authorities are about to devote £10 million of sterling to the liquidation of commercial arrears and hope to settle the remainder early in the New Year.

Profits Tax

Mr. Remnant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why interest on tax reserve certificates, tendered in payment of Profits Tax, is not credited for any period beyond six months after the conclusion of the accounting period concerned; and whether he will make the conditions similar to those that exist when such certificates are tendered in payment of Income Tax.

Mr. Gaitskell: The reason is that there is no single due date for payment of Profits Tax which corresponds to the Income Tax due date of 1st January in the year of assessment. The period of six months, however, is a reasonable measure of the time which must normally elapse before the Profits Tax is assessed and becomes due and payable, and I do not consider that any change is called for.

Mr. Remnant: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that is really a fair reason why the tax reserves certificates should not have interest credited, subject to the two-year limit?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I think it is perfectly fair. If the hon. Member will study my answer, he will see that the difference arises because of the date on which tax is due in the case of the two taxes.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES (LONDON)

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to hackney carriages in London.
The House will remember that, not so long ago, after a brief debate, it decided to allow the introduction of Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. I trust that the one I have now the honour to commend to the House will secure a passage. I believe the Lord President gave it a welcome in his reply to a supplementary question on Question 48. At least he gave some indication of its foreshadowing in his reply to that question, and well indeed he might,


because I believe the passage of this Bill may assist the Festival of Britain.
The background of this Bill is quite simple. It seeks solely to remedy a point of law based upon a statute passed by this House in 1853, and relates to what is known to lawyers as hackney carriages, and to less legal minded persons as taxicabs. On 9th December, 1948, certain hon. Members of this House raised questions with the Home Secretary. Those questions followed a judgment by Lord Goddard in the Kings Bench Division of the High Court on 1st December, 1948. The judgment followed a case where a taxi-driver, whose cab was in motion, refused to accept as a fare a person who hailed him.
It was then decided by the courts that, under the law as it now exists, there is no obligation for the travelling taxi, although its flag may be up and it has an illuminated sign "For Hire," to accept a person as a fare, Let me say at once that most members of the travelling public have no complaint against the way in which taxi-drivers discharge their duties at the present time, nor is there any suggestion that they arbitrarily avail themselves of the privilege they now have of refusing a fare. But a case might arise where a bad taxi-driver might refuse to accept a poor stranded foreigner, with his baggage, outside one of the London termini in order to pass on to take some of the idle rich home from a night club. It is to remove this temptation and others, that I ask leave to introduce this Bill.
When we expect a large number of foreigners next year, it seems somewhat appropriate to amend the law so that when it is indicated on a taxi that it is for hire, the driver should be under some obligation to accept as a passenger the person who wishes to hire. The intention is to amend the existing law, to bring it into line with what is believed to be the law by the vast majority of people in this country. In commending this Bill to the House I do not think I can do better than quote from the learned judge to whom I have already referred. The quotation is as follows:
It may not he inappropriate to hope that this matter will receive the attention of the appropriate authority which, in relation to cabs, is the Home Secretary. Conditions in 1948 are very different from what they were

in 1853, when taxi-cabs were unknown. At present, every taxi-cab which is not actually hired must be driven with the flag of the taximeter in the upward position, and the words 'for hire' appear on it. Modern taxicabs are now fitted with devices illuminated at night which show on the front of the roof the words 'taxi' or 'for hire,' and the public may well believe that under those circumstances it is open to them to demand to be driven in any cab which is not actually conveying a passenger.
When answering the Questions to which I referred earlier, the Home Secretary said:
The question of amending and consolidating the statutes dealing with London cabs is one which I have noted for consideration at a convenient opportunity, but in the present state of Parliamentary business, I fear I can hold out no hope of early action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c 537.]
Pending this further legislation, I believe that this Bill will be a useful one to the public at large. It will inflict no hardship on taxi-drivers, and it will, in no way, delay or hamper the further codification of the law relating to London taxicabs to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that it is for clearing up of small points of this nature that the right of private Members to introduce a Bill, under Standing Order No. 12, is available. In the brief time at my disposal, I hope I have been able to commend the introduction of this Bill to the House.

Mr. Gibson: I ask the House to reject this Motion. It is not because I do not agree that there is a point to be dealt with in this case, but because I think it should be dealt with in another way. I should like to emphasise the remark made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), that he has no complaint, and does not think anybody else has a complaint, generally speaking, about the way taxi-drivers operate in present conditions.
I think it would be generally agreed that even when we are here until a very late hour at night most of us can get home, somehow, and we are seldom refused by a late travelling taxi-driver. But it is conceivable that this might easily be a dangerous and difficult situation for the taxi-driver, particularly for one who might have finished his work and be on his way home and might be expected by some traveller to go in quite the opposite direction. I am quite sure the hon. Member


for Holland with Boston would not like to leave the door open so widely as to impose any hardship on taxi-drivers. On the other hand, I do not dispute that there is room for the law to be altered. I hope the House will bear that in mind.
The main reason why I ask for the rejection of this Motion is that this matter is already under consideration. There is a working party which was appointed by the Home Secretary to look into the law and the practices in connection with the use of hackney carriages in this country. It consists of representatives of both sides of the industry—the owners of taxi-cabs and, through their trade unions, the men themselves—and also of representatives of Scotland Yard. At the moment the committee is busily engaged in considering this problem and in trying to reach an agreed solution to this and to a number of other very difficult problems which exist for people who have to use taxi-cabs.
I suggest that it would be much better if legislation to deal with this matter were brought forward when the working party has reached agreed conclusions.

Those conclusions can be included in an agreed Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: When was the working party appointed?

Mr. Gibson: I do not know the date. It has been sitting for some time and has already presented one interim report to the Home Secretary. I believe that the way I suggest would be a much better way of dealing with the problem. It would carry with it the agreement and support of the men who drive the taxis, without which there will be difficulty, and the agreement and support of the owners, as well as the support of the Home Office and Scotland Yard. It seems to me that the solution of this problem and of a number of other problems before the committee would be much better dealt with in that way. I ask the House, therefore, to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12, "That leave be given to to hackney carriages in London."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 197.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[3.52 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cundiff, F. W.
Houghton, Douglas


Alport, C. J. M
Cathbert, W. N.
Hudson, Sir Austin Lewisham, N.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Arbuthnot, John
de Chair, S.
Hudson W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Delargy, H. J
Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R (Blackburn, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, Col. J. R. H (Scotstoun)


Astor, Hon. M
Donnelly, D.
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Baldock, J. M
Donner, P. W
Kaberry, D.


Banks, Col. C
Drayson, G. B
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baxter, A B
Drewe, C.
Lambert, Hon. G


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Bell, R. M.
Duthie W. S
Langford-Holl, J.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Eden, Rt Hon A
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Birch, Nigel
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Blackburn, A. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, A T


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin


Booth, A.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Llewellyn, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale
Lloyd, Rt. Hon G. (King's Norton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boy-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Brains, B.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Low, A. R. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J G
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Gridley, Sir A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Grimston, Hon. J (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
McAdden, S. J


Butcher, H. W
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
McCallum, Maj D.


Carmichael, James
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W)
Hay, John
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Clyde, J. L
Headlam, Lieut -Col Rt Hon. Sir C
McKibbin, A.


Colegate, A.
Heald, L. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Higgs, J. M. C
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mann, Mrs. J


Cr[...]okshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Crouch, R. F.
Hope, Lord J
Mathers, Rt Hon. George




Maude, A. E U (Ealing, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P
Sutcliffe, H


Maudling, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)


Medlicott, Brigadier F
Robson-Brown, W (Esher)
Taylor, W J (Bradford, N.)


Mellor, Sir J
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Roper, Sir H.
Thompson, K P (Walton)


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. L.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Mott-Radclyffe, C E
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Nabarro, G.
Savory, Prof. D L.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A [...]


Nicholls, H
Scott, Donald
Tilney, John


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Shepherd, W S (Cheadle)
Touche, G. C


Nutting, Anthony
Silverman, S S (Nelson)
Vosper, D F


Odey, G. W.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Wakefield, E. B (Derbyshire, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Snadden, W McN.
Watkinson, H.


Pannell, T. C.
Soames, Capt C
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Spearman, A C M
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Pools)


Perkins, W R. D.
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H M
Stanley, Capt Hon. R (N. Fylde)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge


Pickthorn, K.
Steward, W A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ear


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wood, Hon. R


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Storey, S.
York. C


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich)



Rayner, Brig. R
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redmayne, M.
Studholme, H G
Captain Duncan and Mr. Nugent.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.


Adams, Richard
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. [...]
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McNeil, Rt Hon H


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gibson, C. W
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Ayles, W. H.
Gilzean, A
Manuel, A C


Bacon, Miss A
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Mellish, R. J


Balfour, A.
Gooch, E G.
Messer, F


Bartley, P.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P C
Mikardo, Ian


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Anthony W J. (Rossendale)
Moeran, E. W


Beswick, F
Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A S


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W D. (Exchange)
Morley, R.


Boardman, H.
Gunter, R. J
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Mulley, F. W


Bowden, H. W
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Murray, J. D


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Hall, J. (Gateshead W.)
Nally, W


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, W W
Neal, H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Brooks, T. J (Normanton)
Hardy, E. A
Oliver, G. H


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)
Orbach, M


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hargreaves, A
Paget, R. T


Burton, Miss E.
Harrison, J
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hayman, F H
Pargiter, G A


Chetwynd, G. R
Herbison, Miss M
Paton, J.


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C R
Pearson, A


Cocks, F. S
Holman, P
Peart, T. F


Collindridge, F
Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, N.)
Porter, G.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W T


Crossman, R. H. S
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, J


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Rees, Mrs D


Daines, P.
Irving, W. J (Wood Green)
Reeves, J


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Isaacs, Rt Hon G A
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, D. P. T
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Deer, G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, G. H. R (Kensington, N)


Dodds, N. N
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, T. E. N
Kenyon, C
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Key, Rt. Hon C W
Shackleton, E. A. A


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
King, H. M
Shurmer, P L E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)
Kinley, J
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lang, Rev. G
Simmons, C J


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)
Lever, L M (Ardwick)
Slater, J


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G
Sorensen, R W


Field, Capt. W. [...]
MacColl, J. E
Sparks, J A


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R R


Follick, M
Mack, J D
Strachey, Rt Hon J


Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stress, Dr B







Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wallace, H. W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watkins, T. E
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Webb. Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
West, D G
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wheatley, Rt.Hon.John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Winterbottom, R. E (Brightside)


Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W
Wyatt, W L


Timmons, J.
Wigg, George
Yates, V. F.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wilkins, W. A.



Tomney, F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Viant, S. P
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mr. Awbery and Mr. Keenan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Butcher, Mr. John Hay, Sir Stanley Holmes, Sir Peter Macdonald, Mr. Maudling, Mr. Nugent and Mr. Derek Walker-Smith.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL

"to amend the law relating to hackney carriages in London," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st December, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is no new departure of policy affecting local loan finance; in effect, it provides merely a further annual renewal of the system of local loans which has been in force since 1945. The House will recall that recently we continued in force in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Section 1 of the Local Authorities Loans Act, which compels local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board. The Bill now before us is the companion Bill which gives power to the Exchequer to make the necessary loans to local authorities.
It is by means of the powers given to us by this Bill, and the corresponding former Bills, that we are enabled to continue loans to local authorities which appear as expenditure below the line in the Budget, and which have, in fact, financed the extensive capital development programmes of local authorities throughout the country in the last five years. Much the largest part of that expenditure is, of course, on housing. There is also expenditure on education, transport, drainage, and a number of other things. We have been lending to the local authorities for expenditure by them annually a sum of something like £300 million by this means. Of that £300 million far the largest part has, of course, been used for housing.
I think it is generally agreed, and I hope that the House will agree today, that this method of finance introduced in 1945 has worked, on the whole, very smoothly and successfully, and has given local authorities the benefit of a regular supply of capital when it was wanted and at lower rates of interest than, on the whole, they had previously enjoyed.
The only real change in this Bill relates to the limit set on the figure of advances plus commitments which the Public Works Loan Board is authorised to make and incur. Under the previous Act the

total for advances was £500 million and the total for advances plus commitments was £680 million. "Commitments" in this connection means advances which the Public Works Loan Board has undertaken to make when requested but has not yet made. Under the present Bill the maximum for advances remains the same at £500 million, but the maximum for advances plus commitments is raised from £680 million to £850 million.
The House may be interested to know that in the present year, taking loans up to the end of last month—that is to say, during the first 46 weeks of the current Act—the total amounted to £240 million. Of that, housing accounted for £172 million, educaiton for £16,500,000, transport, water and certain other items for £32,500,000.
There are really two reasons for our proposal to increase the limit for advances plus commitments from £680 million to £850 million. That increase does not imply any sudden expansion in the rate of local authority spending within the investment programme. The total local authority investment programme is rising slightly, but it is not rising at that rate, and that is not what accounts for the increase. The increase is due, in first place, to the fact that local authorities are now being able to plan their programmes rather farther ahead, and, therefore, to submit more fully developed schemes to the Public Works Loan Board and get the commitments farther ahead than previously.
That is, I think, desirable in itself, both in the interests of individual housing or school building schemes, or whatever they may be, and in the interests of the planning of the investment programme. If schemes exist on paper for a rather longer period ahead than previously it will be easier for those at the centre and in the regions, where much of this planning is done, to ensure that the work goes forward smoothly in relation to the availability of labour and materials in each area.
The House will realise that the decision whether or not individual schemes or groups of schemes go forward at a certain date is not determined by the financial limit which we set in the Bill. The effective controlling force is the authority, which is normally the regional officials


of the Departments concerned, and particularly the Minister of Works, to undertake the actual physical work. They naturally take that decision in the light of the general limits on the investment programme which have been laid down at the centre for the year in question. I think that this scheme of starting dates decided in the regions has also worked pretty smoothly, and has enabled us in the last few years, while keeping building labour fully employed, to avoid local scrambles for labour and materials.
The other reason for raising the limit is that the local authorities are now preparing to put into effect a rather higher proportion of those schemes which take longer to carry out. For instance, there is a rather higher proportion of school building within the programme than there was a year or two ago; and, generally speaking, a school takes two or three years to build, whereas most housing schemes at the present time are completed sooner than that. If, since the Public Works Loan Board gave its original agreement to a given project for a school, the building of the school takes, say, three years instead of one, that naturally increases the limit of the commitments to which the Public Works Loan Board has acceded.
The Bill is, in fact, annual. What it does is to set a limit, in terms of finance such as I have described, beyond which the Public Works Loan Board cannot accept new commitments until another Act is passed. But in practice we have been passing an annual Bill, and our intention is that the present Bill should, so far as we can foresee, last for at least a year. I should remind the House that commitments which have not been implemented during the period of one Act are carried forward to the next. For instance, when the Act which is now due to expire came into operation, commitments of £230 million, or about nine months' rate of expenditure, were carried forward from the previous period. It is likely that the figure to be carried forward next month will be of the order of £360 million.
This is, of course, in any case merely an enabling Bill which enables loans to be made up to this total. It does not, of course, compel the Public Works Loan Board to make loans up to that figure unless it wishes to do so. I think, therefore, that since we are continuing a proceduring which has been found generally

satisfactory the House will wish to give its approval to this Bill today.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill, which comes forward sometimes once a year and sometimes more often, has never proved, I think, to be a contentious Measure, and it is not likely to do so on this occasion. Since we are agreed, I think in all quarters of the House, that it is quite essential that adequate finance should be available for local authority schemes, particularly those dealing with the housing programme, and as we on this side of the House take the view that the housing programme could and should be accelerated, we certainly should not dream of objecting to adequate finance being placed at the disposal of local authorities for that purpose.
The Financial Secretary said that this was an annual Bill; but one of my criticisms a year ago was that we had had since the war two Bills within a period of six months in 1945 and two Bills within a period of seven months in 1947, whereas in the intervening periods sometimes 18 months had elapsed between the introduction of these Bills. I am very glad that now at last we do appear to be getting back to the practice of having this Bill brought in annually at the beginning of each new Session during the autumn.
I for my part should not be disposed to quarrel with the increased limit which the Bill proposes in regard to the commitments into which the Public Works Loan Board may enter. As the hon Gentleman said, it is very necessary that local authorities schemes for expenditure should be planned well forward, and it may, therefore, be necessary for the Board to commit themselves to the grant of loans on a much larger scale in the future than has been the practice in the past.
I want to say one word about rates of interest, which the hon. Gentleman did not touch upon; and I hope that, with the leave of the House, before we part with this Bill the hon. Gentleman will say a word or two upon that most important matter. All that the hon. Gentleman did commit himself to was to say that the Local Authorities Loans Act, which canalised local authorities borrowing after the war through the Public Works Loan Board, had been a


success. In that I completely concur. He went on to say that it had enabled local authorities to get their loans at lower rates than they had previously enjoyed. But I must remind the House—as I did last year—once more of what the intention was so far as rates of interest were concerned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Anderson in 1945, when the original Local Authorities Loans Act was passed, said that the intention was that the interest rates at which local authorities would be able to borrow should be approximately what the Treasury itself paid, or might be expected to pay, on its own borrowings. That is to say, the intention was that the local authorities should get the benefit of the gilt edged rates of interest in operation at the time when the borrowing took place.
During the lifetime of the Local Authorities Loans Act interest rates have from time to time been changed. Now, nobody would suggest that it is desirable to change those rates of interest frequently; but they must be changed, I think, to conform, over reasonably long periods, with the prevailing interest rates in the money market. From 1st August, 1945, until May, 1946, the long-term rate for a 30-year loan was 3⅛ per cent. On 1st June, 1946, that was reduced. Under the gay and giddy financial dispensation of the now Minister of Town and Country Planning that rate became 2½ per cent. It remained at 2½ per cent. for 18 months. On 2nd January, 1948, Sir Stafford Cripps increased it to 3 per cent., and at that figure it has remained ever since.
Since the devaluation crisis of September, 1949, that rate, of course, has been considerably below, and sometimes very far below, the rate at which the Government themselves could borrow had they gone into the market for long-term loans. Three-and-a-half per cent. War Loan, if I remember right, a year ago had fallen as low as 87 and was giving a return of something like 4 per cent. At the present time, I think that it has recovered to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 96, but if the Government went into the market today for a 30-year loan, they would certainly have to pay considerably in excess of 3 per cent. and probably in excess of 3½ per cent.
What is the effect of the Public Works Loan Board lending to local authorities at 3 per cent. at the present time? It is in effect, of course, giving an additional concealed subsidy to many services which are subsidised already. I am quite sure that we all recognise that most local authorities should and do attract subsidies, and subsidies, particularly for housing schemes at the present time, are absolutely essential; but it surely cannot be right that there should be one annual subsidy borne on the Votes of the Department and another annual subsidy concealed through the loans which enable the houses to be built, to be granted for a period of 30 years at rates of interest which bear no relation to reality at all.
It seems to me that in the interest of good accountancy, if of nothing else, the interest rates charged to local authorities should be true rates, and not much lower rates than those at which the Government itself can borrow, and, if necessary, the rates of subsidy provided through the annual Vote should be increased, if that in fact is necessary. I do not think that it can be right to have a concealed subsidy of this character. In point of fact, this concealed subsidy had a very bad effect in the autumn of last year.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the last report of the Public Works Loan Board for 1949–50, he will see what was the effect. At the top of page 8 there is a table setting out the loans approved by the Commissioners in each year since the end of the war. The figures are as follows: In 1946–47 the loans approved were £294 million; in 1947–8, £278 million; in 1948–49, £269 million. These three years show a steady average of round about £270 million, with a tendency for the figures of loans approved to go down rather than to go up. But in the year 1949–50, when it became so tremendously advantageous to the local authorities to borrow at these absurdly low rates, the loans approved went up by more than 50 per cent., from £269 million in the previous year to no less than £393 million in 1949–50.
When I raised this matter before, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government were aware of this, and had in fact devised effective ways and means of preventing the local authorities anticipating their


borrowing requirements, as they undoubtedly have done during the past 18 months, by going to the Public Works Loan Board and borrowing far in advance of any anticipated expediture. I should like the hon. Gentleman, if he will speak again by leave of the House, first to say a word about these interest rates generally, and why they have remained at the same figures since early in 1948, when that really cannot be justified in present circumstances; and, secondly, what steps have in fact been taken to stop the recurrence of what has happened during the past 18 months by way of anticipation by local authorities. I should like him to tell the House what these steps have been and why he is now able to assure the House that these steps are effective for their purpose. I feel sure that the House and the country would be very much interested if we could have a statement upon these matters.

4.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Before I proceed with what I really wish to say, there is one point to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) referred, in the course of which I think he unintentionally misled the House. He drew attention to the fact that the loans approved by the Public Works Loan Board had gone up from £269 million in 1948–49 to £393 million in 1949–50. That is quite correct so far as it goes, but I think it would have presented a truer picture to the House if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the sums of loans advanced had not increased to anything like the same amount.

Mr. Peake: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, the point which he makes emphasises the point which I was making, that there had been loans approved far in advance of any possible power to spend the money on the part of the local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It was, nevertheless, possible to ensure that, although the loans approved may have increased, the loans actually advanced were brought within a greater measure of control, because it is a fact that, at a later stage, the control exercised by the Treasury or the Public Works Loan Board began to become effective. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated more or less the same points that he tried to make about a year

ago, when he dealt with the subject of interest rates. If it is possible, I am sure that the House would welcome the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, because this point was not specifically dealt with in what, I think, was the last debate on this subject which took place in November of last year.
The point to which I should like, in a few moments, to draw attention is the extent to which the Public Works Loan Board, in its present administrative form, serves any useful purpose at all. I recall a speech by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who happens to be a Commissioner and, therefore, perhaps not quite so free to speak on this matter in the House, in which he drew attention to the very limited character of the functions that can now be exercised by the Public Works Loan Board, especially in view of the Local Authority Loans Act of 1945. It is a fact, of course, that when any local authority obtains a loan of this kind, three separate bodies intervene—the sanctioning Government Department, the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Board. So far as I am able to ascertain from speeches on the subject and from the annual report of the Public Works Loan Board, all that the Board does in considering these applications is to examine the credit of the local authority concerned.
The 75th Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board indicates that out of 13,676 applications which had been made, loans to the extent of £393 million were approved, of which £292 million were actually advanced. In only one case did the Public Works Loan Board consider it inadvisable to grant an advance, and that was in the case of a luckless parish council which wanted to spend £1,923 on a recreation ground. In that one instance, out of the thousands of cases with which they had to deal in the year under review, they considered that no advance should be made, and then only after getting in touch with the Treasury and finding out that they did not regard the proposal as essential in the public interest. The extent, therefore, to which the Public Works Loan Board functioned in this respect during 1949–50 was to knock out one application for £1,923 out of a total of £292 million advanced.
The Public Works Loans Commission is quite a high-powered body. A sum of no less than £46,000 is provided in the Estimates to cover the salaries and the small incidental expenses of the department, and something like 100 people are employed. It seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nutshell, when we compare this considerable set-up with the extent to which the credit-worthiness of the local authorities making application is considered and examined. I should like to support very much what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, said last year, that the time has come for the whole procedure very considerably to be simplified to the advantage of the taxpayer, to the advantage of the local authorities and to the advantage of everyone concerned.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I was very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), brought out so clearly and forcefully the point about interest rates. I add my appeal to the Financial Secretary to give us some explanation why these rates are fixed at the present level. For many years, as we all know, there has been an entirely new technique, "revolutionary" as it was described by the late Sir Kingsley Wood, who was. I think, the first to practise it, for bringing down the rate of interest on Government borrowing. That has been most effectively and efficiently handled by the authorities, and I, for one, had been entirely in favour for a long time of their bringing down the rate as much as they can, because I thought that the inflationary effect was very much less than the great advantages to the Treasury in borrowing more cheaply.
But it seems to me that the position has entirely changed during the last few years, when we have been told on many occasions from the Government Front Bench that there have to be cuts in expenditure on investment. Therefore, it seems to me to be a very strange time to force down the price of money, and thereby considerably to encourage people to spend money on capital investment, for what may be admirable purposes but which may not be so urgent as other things. I know that the Financial Secretary has a much greater liking and belief in controls than we share on this side

of the House, but I wonder whether he can be so confident as exactly how to control the allocation of materials and how to make quite sure that exactly the right priority is given for everything.
Surely he will agree that by making money rather dearer for those who are going to borrow, it will discourage expenditure on those things which are not so urgent. If there is a case for using money rates as an instrument to combat inflation, or in an entirely different state of circumstances the reverse, if there is a good reason for using the money rates intelligently, sometimes putting the rate up and sometimes putting it down, then still more strong to me seems to be the reason for not now having the rate of these loans fixed far below the rate at which the Government can borrow. I think it was an Irish judge who once said that he was going to hold the balance as fairly as he could between partiality and impartiality.
If the Financial Secretary is really to advocate a continuation of the rate at far below the level the Government can borrow, then he is not being neutral in these matters, but is quite definitely giving an inflationary twist. He is really giving a hidden subsidy at the cost of the taxpayer, which is most undesirable. In addition, he is giving a very definite impetus to inflation. In effect, he is saying to local authorities that they can have money at a cheaper price than the market price, and that they can spend what they can. That must be the sort of encouragement they are now getting. I ask the Financial Secretary to reconsider the rate and to put it back to the rate at which the Government can borrow, or to give some substantial reasons for this which, as yet, he has not told to the House.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I do not think there is any great principle involved in the question of the rate at which local authorities can borrow. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) will remember, if he casts his mind back, that we have completely altered the whole basis on which the local loans fund is fortified, and also the methods by which local authorities can borrow. Prior to the war the local authorities had power to borrow in the open market or from the local loans fund, except in the case of certain smaller authorities. The larger authorities borrowed from this fund if


they thought that to be a financial advantage to them.
By an Act of Parliament, we took away the power of local authorities to borrow in the open market, with certain exceptions, and compelled them to borrow from the local loans fund. This was to enable the majority of local authorities to borrow at the least possible rate of interest. At the present moment we are lending at 3 per cent., which is probably below the rate which the Government could borrow long. But the Government's borrowing powers are very diversified. They can borrow both on short-term and long-term.
I think I am right in saying that the average rate of interest on the National Debt is now in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent. If we put the credit of the Government behind the local authorities, it is folly to say that we will give the local authorities the same rate of interest at which they themselves can borrow. The whole purpose of the Act was to enable local authorities to borrow more cheaply.

Mr. Spearman: I remember taking part in the debate on that Measure and explaining that I had been responsible for raising loans for a good many corporations, and saying that I welcomed it; but not because the corporations were to borrow at a cheaper rate, but because they would be saved a great deal of expense in connection with the issue.

Mr. Benson: Certain smaller local authorities are borrowing much more cheaply under the present arrangement. If there is borrowing for a housing estate, it means borrowing for the amortisation period.
Great local authorities like Manchester, with many millions of pounds of debt, could borrow on short-term for very favourable rates of interest, and the effect of compelling Manchester to borrow from the local loans fund on similar terms that local authorities could borrow before the war, could but do a great deal of damage to Manchester. The Government are entitled to say that the average rate is 2 per cent., that they have taken away the powers of local authorities to borrow in the open market, and that there is no reason therefore why they should not supply them with money at less than the long-term borrowing rate. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, I think it

is a perfectly legitimate financial transaction.
I regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) that this lending to local authorities cheaply is inflationary, I am not sure that there is any real validity in that argument. It used to be said that the rate of interest tended to control inflation—that if the interest rates went up it tended to damp down investment—but I am not sure that there is any truth in that argument. Investigation as to the effect of fluctuations in the rates of interest for private investment have tended to be negative. The results of the investigation were that very few firms said that they controlled their rate of investment by the prevailing rate of interest. Still less does this apply with local authority.
The great bulk of their investment is on housing, and what controls their expenditure is not the rate of interest at which they can borrow the money, but the rate at which they can get raw materials and labour. It would be very difficult for the hon. Member to establish that a lower rate of interest increases the rate of expenditure of local authorities, which do not invest from the speculative point of view. Taking the two arguments, first the financial unorthodoxy of lending at a lower rate than the Government can borrow long-term, lending, in fact, at a rate which is intermediate between Government long and short-term rates; and, secondly, the argument that this is inflationary, I do-not think that either has any weight.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Maudling): I found it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). He said that the purpose of the Act was to enable local authorities to borrow money as cheaply as possible. If they did that they would get it at no-rate of interest at all. The purpose is to enable them to borrow, not as cheaply as possible, but at gilt-edge rates. I agree that the credit-worthiness of the local authorities was the same as the credit-worthiness of the Government. It is reasonable that local authorities should be in a position to borrow at the same rate as the Government.

Mr. Benson: The local authorities have no power to borrow in the open


market now. That power has been taken from them. The rate of interest at which different local authorities could borrow varied enormously. Big authorities like Manchester could borrow at as low a rate as the Government. The smaller local authorities borrowed from the Board at 4, 5 or 6 per cent. because they could not borrow in the open market.

Mr. Maudling: I thank the hon. Member for his information. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), before the introduction of the Act I had a certain amount to do with finding money for local authorities. They usually borrowed on the security of their rates. They borrowed very large sums on which the rates of interest did not vary very much between one authority and another. I cannot agree that the idea of the statute is to enable local authorities to borrow money at as low a rate of interest as possible because that rate of interest might be absolutely nothing. Then the Government could have the money for nothing.
If the Act had any purpose, it was to enable local authorities to borrow money at gilt-edge rates of interest. If local authorities are now borrowing money for 30-year terms, or whatever it may be, at rates lower than those which the Government would have to pay for money on similar terms, obviously the local authorities are being subsidised. The hon. Member may argue that, taking the average of local authorities as a whole, some pay lower rates and some higher rates, but in that case also the subsidy still exists though it comes not from the Government but from the local authorities who would otherwise be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest. If some local authorities get their money at a cheaper rate than the Government would get it in the open market, they are receiving a subsidy, and that comes from the Government or from other local authorities. Without arguing the merits of a subsidy of that scale to local authorities for housing purposes, if there is such a subsidy, as there is shown to be, it should be recognised and treated as a subsidy and nothing else.
The Financial Secretary said that the proportion of the local authority investment programme represented by school

buildings was increasing; in other words, the ratio of schools to houses is rising. Do the Government approve of that trend, and do they expect the trend to continue? Do they expect the ratio of houses to schools in local authorities programmes to continue to fall over the next few years? What discretionary powers now rest upon the Public Works Loan Board, and on what criteria do they base the use of those powers? Are they given any guidance on the lines of the memorandum guidance issued to the Capital Issues Committee?

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Not all of my hon. Friends would agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and his hon. Friends. I should have said that the object of the Public Works Loans Act was clear. It is, first, to canalise the borrowing by local authorities for capital expenditure; second, to stabilise the rates of interest at which they are able to borrow; third, to iron out inequalities between one local authority and another, which is obviously desirable; and, fourth, to avoid the uncertainty and expense which fell upon local authorities, before the Act was passed, of having to borrow in the open market.
The machinery of the Act has brought considerable advantages to local authorities and ratepayers. It is not desirable to have continuous fluctuations in rates of interest. This is not a matter for the Commissioners themselves, but for the Treasury. I should have thought that as long as the rate of interest roughly approximates to the gilt-edged figures over a fairly long period that would be acting in accordance with the spirit in which the Act was passed.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Barnet have spoken about the functions of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I believe that I am the only Member of the House at present who is a Commissioner. In view of what has been said, I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the fact that I am a Commissioner imposes upon me any restrictions on anything I feel it my duty to say in the House about the functions of the Board and that I should feel perfectly free, if I felt it necessary to do so, to criticise


the machinery set up by the Act. Indeed, I believe that the House has a duty to consider how the machinery of the Act works and whether any changes are required from time to time.
It is true that until comparatively recently the Commissioners had not thought it incumbent upon them to reject a single application for a lean. The exception was a rather minor application for a loan for a recreation ground by a parish council, to which reference has been made. A significant paragraph, however, appears in the Board's Annual Report for the year 1949–50. There, the Commissioners indicate, for the benefit of the House and the guidance of the country, the kind of embarrassment with which they are sometimes faced because in these days local authorities are virtually compelled to borrow from the Board or not to borrow at all.
It is the duty of the Commissioners, in the first place, to consider whether the security of the local authority for the proposed loan is adequate. The Commissioners are the sole judges of the adequacy of the security. In this connection they are also entitled to have regard to the general nature of the proposal and whether there is any unnecessary extravagance. This is what the Commissioners said:
The high costs of some educational building projects in comparison with others seemed to the Board to call for further examination and the Board felt it was their duty to indicate this to the Treasury. After consultation with that Department the Board agreed as regards items in the 1949 programme, although with some reluctance, to make the loans required in each case. The Board were given to understand that economies had already been planned in respect of the 1950 programme and have since learnt that the Ministry of Education have prescribed still further economies to the 1951 programme.
Hon. Members will know that during the last year or so considerable reductions in the standard rates for new school buildings have been made at the instance of the Minister of Education.
It is not the responsibility of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to criticise in any detail the extent of the expenditure upon which local authorities have decided after consultation with whichever Government Department is contributing to the expenditure to be incurred. If any responsibility is sought for imposing restrictions on expenditure by

local authorities where the Government is a contributor, it must be the responsibility of the Government Department concerned.
I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the machinery of the Public Works Loans Commissioners is like having a sledge-hammer to crack an eggshell. The machinery is well suited to discharge the limited functions put upon it by Parliament. On the other hand, it is important that the House and the public should realise that the Commissioners ought not to be regarded as being in any sense a watch dog for checking unnecessarily high expenditure by local authorities. Constitutionally, that is the responsibility, first, of the local authorities and, second, of the Treasury and the other Government Departments concerned.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I hope that the Opposition are not implying that the money rates for capital required by local authorities should be allowed to rise, or that the local authorities should not be permitted to continue to get money at low rates of interest. I do not believe that that was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). He said that the arrangement ought to be changed on accountancy grounds alone. There may be something in what he says, but I seemed to detect in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) the view that on long-term the rate of interest should approximate to the gilt-edged rates.
When I remind myself of what happened in a earlier debate, which set up this arrangement whereby local authorities were to canalise their applications for loans, I thought the idea was to give some assistance to the very poor municipal authorities. It was always my view that there should be some central responsibility for seeing that such local authority were helped on the way. If they had to compete with the better-off authorities they might, in that event, get a fair deal.
I am glad to see that the interest rates to local authorities have been kept low, because in some of the areas from which we come, such as the industrial areas, it is vital that rates of interest should be kept down. In fact, it was a good Socialist philosophy that money should be made


available to the poorest of the local authorities at a nominal rate of interest if there was to be any interest at all, because the local authority had got to pay it back, and if it was a high rate and had to be passed on in terms of rents on council houses, there would result an unfortunate outcome, which we all wish to avoid.
Whatever happens in this arrangement, either an accountancy arrangement, or one included in the Department's work or whatever the term by which the Public Loans Commissioners provide the money, let us be certain that cheap money is available for all desirable projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) so rightly said, the rate of production is determined not so much by £ s. d.; it is upon the physical resources that the nation calls. We might have millions of money to make available, but unless we have the manpower and material the work cannot go on. In this matter there has to be some sort of priority, and from our point of view housing should have the topmost priority. I hope the good work of making cheap money available to local authorities, which this Bill has made possible, will continue and not only on an accountancy basis but on a social and moral basis.
Finally, on Clause 3, which deals with the winding-up of old debts, there was reference to a case, far back in history, where someone, having bought an Irish railway, then discovered that it was lost. Nobody seems to have known whose railway it was and what happened to it. I should like to know whether there are any more old railways or other concerns on the books of the Treasury, about which they will be coming to us in the future. It is rather amusing to bring such things as these out of the bag and to find that the railway was opened in 1867 and that the amount to be remitted is probably £12,444 and the interest charged £49,154. If the Financial Secretary speaks again, I wish he would tell us something about this and any similar cases, about which we ought to know.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I desire to make three very small points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), referred

to the considerable amount of anticipatory loans raised by local authorities. That is true. The answer is that the rate of interest which the local authorities have to pay on the loans which they raise from the Public Works Loan Board is determined for them at the time when they take up the loan, not at the time when the loan is indicated.

Mr. Peake: The Financial Secretary will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at the time the loan is approved the rate of interest is fixed.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: That is not my information. My information is that the amount of interest is fixed at the time the loan is taken up by the local authority and not when the loan is indicated. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will deal with that point. It is important that the local authorities know precisely the amount of interest which they will have to pay during the currency of the loan at the time when they embark on the scheme and it is approved by the Department.
The second point I want to make is with reference to the comment of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). He referred to the fact that low rates of interest have an inflationary effect. He suggested that local authorities, in view of the money available at such low rates of interest, were ready to go "on the binge."

Mr. Peake: Order!

Mr. Elwyn Jones: A financial "binge" I mean. That is quite incorrect. Applications for loans are made direct by the sponsoring authority. When the local authority applies for a loan and once sanction is issued, then the application is sent by the Department to the Board, I should have thought that any tendency on the part of local authorities to indulge in schemes which could not be justified at the moment would be restricted by the appropriate Department. That is a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who said that the appropriate Department, the Ministry of Works or the Ministry of Health in any particular case, has to determine whether or not a scheme is necessary in the light of the capital position.

Mr. Spearman: What I tried to make clear was that if a scheme were taking perhaps five years to complete, and if the money could be borrowed for that scheme, say, at 1 per cent., it would be a much more profitable proposition than if the interest were higher. Therefore, if money can be borrowed very cheaply by local authorities or anyone else, it would encourage them to carry out such schemes because money was cheap, and discourage them if money were dear.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I accept that in the normal market. In fact, however, schemes promoted by local authorities now must receive the consent and sanction of the appropriate Department.
It is the appropriate Government Department which determines whether or not a scheme goes forward. Whether a scheme goes forward is determined not by the cheapness of money at the moment, but by whether it is urgent in the light of the overall position. So the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, about the rate of interest encouraging local authorities to engage in schemes which otherwise they would not consider, is not true, in view of the position today, when all schemes have to be sanctioned by the appropriate Government Department.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) and others have asked me about rates of interest, and the right hon. Gentleman remarked that I had not made any reference specifically to that subject. I was not sure whether a full discussion on the issue of rates of interest would be in order. All I said in my initial speech was that by this system we had enabled local authorities to borrow rather more cheaply than they did before the war. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is disputing that. The present rate of interest on loans for periods exceeding 15 years is 3 per cent., on loans for periods of less than 15 years it is less than 3 per cent.
At the time when the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) were engaged in arranging loans to local authorities I was writing comments in the Press on some of the issues made. My impression was that while richer authorities like Birmingham, Manchester, and the L C.C.,

could borrow at low rates of interest, some of the poorer areas like Sunderland, and perhaps Stoke, had to pay a rather high rate of interest. I do not think it can be disputed that we have benefited by this system of a lower structure of rates of interest.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced the argument that we were at the present moment lending at too low a rate of interest, because we were lending at a rate below that at which the Government would be able to raise money on loan for a corresponding period. As he said, Sir John Anderson's intention was that the local authorities should pay the same rate of interest as the Government have to pay. The point, which perhaps Sir John Anderson did not foresee, and which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, was that, in fact, over the last three years at any rate, the Government have not been borrowing money to lend to local authorities. Since 1947 we have had a surplus of revenue over expenditure both above and below the line, and, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that we are paying to local authorities a concealed subsidy by lending at a rate, at which, in theory, we could not borrow if we had to borrow, he is entering into an argument which is not at all simple, but perhaps somewhat metaphysical, and which might require consideration by the Irish judge whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned.

Mr. Maudling: Is it considered that the Government could borrow for 30 years at 3 per cent.?

Mr. Jay: I was not expressing a view about what rate the Government could borrow at for 30 years. I was merely pointing out that, as long as the Government is covering expenditure above and below the line out of revenue, it is not true to say that the Government are paying a subsidy by borrowing money at 4 per cent. and lending it at the rates I have indicated.

Mr. Nigel Birch: It still involves a concealed subsidy if the Government is making the money available. For instance, suppose they decided to buy up the 3½ per cent. War Loan at a considerable discount, they would be saving a considerable degree of money which they are not saving by, in fact, lending this money at 3 per cent.

Mr. Jay: I agree that it could be argued that, if the money is used in some other way, it could bring in a larger return, but this is not quite such a simple argument as it looks when account is taken of the fact that our expenditure below the line is at present covered by revenue.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby argued, as far as I understood, that we ought to allow discrimination in the investment programme to be operated through the rate of interest, and not by the direct decisions which are now taken as to which schemes are the most urgent on grounds of national need.

Mr. Spearman: I do not have the same confidence in the complete infallibility of the Treasury to decide what would and would not be an advantageous investment over a period of many years.

Mr. Jay: I should be very far from claiming that any system for taking these decisions is perfect, but the present method of taking the decision is at least better than allowing it to be taken by the rate of interest. If the hon. Member was seriously contending that we should approve this housing scheme or that, this school building scheme or that, according to whether the loan was at 3 per cent., or some other rate, that would be in accordance with the laissez faire arguments which the hon. Member puts so persuasively before the House.
I was rather surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman apparently urging us to raise the rate of interest on these local authority loans because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), I understood that he was not simply making an accountancy point, but that it was because he thought the rate of interest charged to local authorities should definitely be raised to what he regarded as the market rate. If that is his argument—

Mr. Peake: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me?

Mr. Jay: Yes. He was asking us to adopt an argument which would lead to an increase in the costs of house building.

Mr. Peake: I think the hon. Gentleman must have missed a part of my speech in which I said that any necessary subsidies on house building, or any other

local authority project, must, of course, be granted and, if necessary, increased to make up for anything they might lose through the rate of interest being brought up to the proper level. I was making the point that subsidies should appear as subsidies in the annual accounts.

Mr. Jay: I thought perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be saying that, but I listened as carefully as I could and it did not seem to me that he did say that. If he did say that he is asking, apparently, for an increase in general housing subsidies, which would be another example of the increases in expenditure for which the Opposition are always asking. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there might have been some practical objection to a policy of lending at a lower rate of interest than the Government could obtain in the market, if that policy led to a scramble—of which there were some signs a year ago.
I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was right in pointing out that the figure of loans actually advanced by the Board in the relevant year was not nearly so large as the loans approved. It seemed that my hon. and gallant Friend was also right in saying that it is the figure of loans actually advanced, and not the figure of those approved, which is of consequence. On the question of borrowing at 3 per cent. to reinvest at a higher rate of interest, I would say that the local authorities could not reinvest at a higher rate of interest unless the money had been actually advanced to them.

Mr. Peake: There was one rather important question asked from this side of the House and by hon. Members opposite. That is, is the rate of interest fixed at the time the loan is approved, or at the time when it is advanced?

Mr. Jay: As the rate of interest is the same, of course it is not of great practical importance, but I understand—speaking from memory—that it is fixed at the time the loan is advanced.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the measures which we took a year ago to keep this movement under control had been successful, and he asked what those measures had been. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he asked the same question a fortnight ago when


we were discussing another Bill. I have made inquiries since, and I find the answer which I gave provisionally was perfectly correct. The Measures we took have kept that movement under control, and borrowings are now proceeding fairly smoothly. The arrangements were that the Departments concerned had direct consultations with the local authorities, and it was agreed that their borrowings should be kept down to current cash requirements. The exact administrative arrangements are for the Ministry of Health, or whichever Department is mainly concerned.
Our intention in this matter of interest rates is to keep down the rates charged to local authorities to as low a rate as we reasonably can. It is quite impossible to predict what that will be in varying circumstances, but, in so far as we can, in practice, keep it down and keep down the cost of housing and other development schemes, our intention will be to do so.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Could the hon. Gentleman put a point to the Public Works Loan Board? The great difficulty local authorities have in borrowing money from the Board is this. Assuming they have had to borrow for 100 houses, they get the loan approved for the capital sum involved and, as soon as approval is given, they have to take up the entire loan. The development of the 100 houses may take perhaps 12 months and we find most local authorities charge on their rates an additional sum of interest, say a ¼ or a ½ per cent., to cover the extra money involved in the loan charges which they are forced to take. If it could be made possible for them to take up their loan sanctions in small portions as parts of the schemes were completed, that would save a great deal of money for them.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I think the Financial Secretary said that the rate of interest was fixed when the loan was advanced and not when it was approved. If that were so, we are getting into a realm of finance unknown even in 1950. Surely he made a mistake and the actual rate of interest is fixed when the loan is approved and not when it is advanced; otherwise, the entire matter would lead to more confusion than that with which we associate the present Government.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I am quite correct; it is fixed when the money is advanced, and it has always been so.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House Committee Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Resolved:
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of the unpaid balance of principal and all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of a loan to the Parsons-town and Portumna Bridge Railway Company.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make certain provision of a financial nature in connection with the operation of the European Payments Union Agreement and the furnishing of American aid in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the use of the Exchange Equalisation Account and of the funds in that Account in the carrying out of any transaction by the Government of the United Kingdom in pursuance of the said Agreement;
(b) such issues out of the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund, such raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, such repayments to the Exchequer and such issues from the Consolidated Fund for the repayment of debt as result from any provision of the said Act of the present Session enabling temporary advances to be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund to the Intra-European Payments Account and applying section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946, in relation to those temporary advances;
(c) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required in connection with any debts to the Government of the United Kingdom which are outstanding debts within the meaning of the said Agreement or which may arise on the termination of that Agreement


with regard to any party or on the liquidation of the European Payments Union, and—

(i) for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as aforesaid, the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and
(ii) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Government of the United Kingdom representing interest on, or the repayment of principal of, any sums issued as aforesaid or any debts in connection with which any sums are so issued, and
(iii) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid and their application in redeeming or paying off debt or in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(USE OF EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION AGREEMENT)

5.25 P.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move in page 1, line 11, at the end, to add:
Provided that the expenditure under this section shall not exceed the sum of two hundred and twenty-seven million pounds.
The object of this Amendment is not quite clear at first sight because it seeks to limit the expenditure under the Clause to the sum of £227 million, which sum in fact cannot be exceeded under the present arrangements. Therefore it is necessary to read this Amendment in conjunction with Clause 4 to which a further Amendment has been put down in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends, to leave out lines 18 and 19. That Clause says—
Any reference … to the European Payments Union Agreement shall he construed as a reference to that Agreement as for the time being amended under the terms of the Agreement or by any subsequent agreement …
In the Bill as now drafted there is no limit on the amount of money which might be outstanding at any time under the amended provisions of the Bill. This we think is a vicious principle because it is

surely the duty of this House to see that commitments under this kind of Measure are subject at least to some controls by the House if they exceed the amount in the Bill in the first instance. If I may encourage the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to be accommodating on this occasion, I would tell him that if he agrees to the sum of £227 million in the terms of our Amendment that would take considerable force away from the financial parts of the Amendment we intend moving to Clause 4, although there will be some other points to be raised.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in principle. If I want to put it in different words, I hope he will not think I am being pedantic, as I assure him I merely want it to be as effective as possible. When we debated this matter on Second Reading we were all agreed that we should support the European Payments Union in every way we could and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be a great pity, looked at in terms of Europe, if it were suggested that we were less than wholehearted in our intentions.
I would distinguish between, on the one hand, matters concerning procedure and organisation and, on the other hand, financial matters. I imagine no one would want to cramp the Union in its work or the representative of the United Kingdom on the Council in matters of organisation, or matters of procedure. I would, however, even on that point, make it plain that if any substantial matter of procedure or organisation were to arise, even if it did not mean extra financial commitment, my right hon. Friend would want to bring that matter to the House.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Lyttelton rose—

Mr. Edwards: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I should deal with this matter comprehensively. He has referred to Clause 4 and I do not want to bob up again and again to make a point which is really relevant to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
5.30 p.m.
It is this other type of matter, the financial, with which the Amendment is concerned and which is obviously bothering those who put it down. I have


already made it clear that I have every sympathy with the desire to control the maximum amount of credit which the United Kingdom would grant to the European Payments Union. After all, it is one of the paramount duties of this House to safeguard the public purse, and it would ill-become a representative of the Treasury ever to suggest anything to the contrary. Nevertheless, the Amendment is wrong in substance and in form, and I do not think we can deal with this matter effectively and provide the safeguards which are clearly needed without referring specifically to the amount of credit to be advanced to the European Payments Union by the United Kingdom Government.
Therefore I suggest that the best way of doing what we are in agreement needs to be done would be to qualify Clause 1 at the end by inserting words to the effect that the total amount outstanding in respect of credit granted by the United Kingdom to the European Payments Union should not at any time exceed £228 million—I say £228 million because the precise figure is just above £227 million—unless the House has first given authority for a larger amount quite specifically by an affirmative resolution. I should like to think about the precise form in which that should be stated, but whether it is by way of draft order or by resolution, what I have in mind is an affirmative motion which would come before the House before we were able to go beyond £228 million.
Such a way of putting it would bite quite precisely at the point where it should bite, which is the total amount of credit to be advanced to the Union, and yet it would put the House in the position of being able to deal with any possible requirements for a higher amount of credit without having to deal with a separate Bill for such a purpose. I hope this proposal will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as meeting his wishes. For my part I am sure that this is an adequate method of safeguarding the rights and duties of the House in its care of public expenditure. If this is done I hope that the mover of the Amendment to Clause 4 will recognise that this leaves Clause 4 to deal with matters which are really matters of procedure and organisation, because no matter of finance involving a higher credit could fail to be caught by the proposal I have just made.
Perhaps the most convenient way of doing this—though it perhaps sounds a little queer—is to accept today the form of words proposed in the Amendment, and to make the Amendment; it being clearly understood, however, that when we come to the Report stage later this week we will table Amendments, first to delete the form of words contained in the present proposal and, secondly, to provide for the limitation on the grant of credit to the European Payments Union in the way I have indicated. I have really tried to meet the intentions and wishes of the Committee in this way and, if the Committee will accept this suggestion, I shall see that on the Report stage the necessary amendment is tabled.

Mr. Lyttelton: I can assure the Economic Secretary that if on all occasions he is as accommodating as he has been this afternoon, he shall have little trouble with the Committee. I understand his reasons for wishing to accept these words now, because he does not wish to recommit the Bill. There are one or two much smaller points which will arise on Clause 4, but we can no doubt discuss those when that Clause is reached. Meantime I am satisfied, and thank the Economic Secretary for having discarded the policy of Winchester and New College and for having adopted the policy of what I might call Winchester and New Forest, which is a very different thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PAYMENTS INTO AND OUT OF THE INTRA-EUROPEAN PAYMENTS ACCOUNT.)

Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out subsection (3).
The Economic Secretary is in such a melting mood that I hope we may get some concession here. The hon. Gentleman has made one or two remarks which would not have disgraced Gladstone when he was at the Treasury about the control of expenditure, and which we thought rather out of date.
The effect of the subsection we seek to remove is given much more clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum than can be


deduced from the Clause. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
Subsection (3) provides that temporary advances may be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund to the Intra-European Payments Account if these are required to enable payments out of that Account to be made in advance of receipts in respect of conditional aid.
It may be that money will be required at short notice, and before we can get it from America under the conditional aid provision.
We object to the use for this purpose of the Civil Contingencies Fund which, as the Committee will recollect, is intended to deal with small matters only. In 1939, before the war, it was only £5 million, and was intended to deal with a sudden emergency like a hurricane in an island in the West Indies, the purchase of the Codex Siniaticus, or a celebration of some sort which had not been foreseen. Its purpose was to deal with small matters which would weary the House and which would hold up its business if Ministers had continually to come down to the House to get them through. That is how it was used from its inception until the last war, with the exception of the two war periods.
Since the war this Fund has been increased immensely and now stands at £125 million. One of the main arguments put by the Government when seeking to keep this Fund at such a high level was that it might be required to find large sums out of it for this very purpose, for the use of the European Payments Union in a task which is really one more suitably done by the Exchequer Equalisation Account. We are not maintaining that under this Bill money from the Civil Contingencies Fund will be misused, but we are arguing that it is wrong to charge this money to that Fund because, if we do, the chance of reducing the Fund to a more correct level will be lost.
This is really much the same point as my right hon. Friend was arguing on the first Amendment. It is a question of curbing the power of the Executive. If the Executive has £125 million pocket money which it can use for a year without coming back to this House, evil things may result. And evil things have in tact resulted, because no less a man than the Minister of Health, who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite, borrowed £55 million from this Fund which enabled

him to conceal his maladministration until after the Election. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, of course, considers his maladministration a rare joke. It is—to him. But it is not quite such a joke to other people.
We believe that the use of the Fund is wrong. If the Economic Secretary is sincere, as I am sure he is, and is anxious to return to Gladstonian principles, then he should accept this Amendment. That will enable us subsequently to amend the Civil Contingencies Account and reduce that sum of money from the somewhat distended figure of £125 million to something like £50 million or less, where we believe it ought to be.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jay): I regret to say that on this point we are not able to be quite so accommodating. I am afraid that if we were to accept the Amendment a very essential cog in the machinery of the European Payments Union would be removed. I do not really know why the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) should object so much to the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund for this purpose. I should have thought that this was precisely the kind of object for which such a fund should be used. After all, this is not a question of outright expenditure or even indeed of expenditure on the Vote of any Department at all, so that it is unnecessary to drag in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who, I see, has left. This is simply a question of making temporary advances over an emergency or a contingency, if hon. Members prefer that term, until funds accrue again, when those advances can be repaid.
The arrangement is, as the Committee knows, that the Civil Contingencies Fund make these advances to the Intra-European Payments Account, and in due course the Intra-European Payments Account receives conditional aid from the Economic Co-operation Administration of the American authorities, and is thereby able to reimburse the Civil Contingencies Fund. That seems a convenient arrangement and the most reasonable. Indeed, I think that what has occurred entirely justified the argument which I put forward last summer when we were debating the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, to the effect that we must


have a maximum for the Civil Contingencies Fund of something of the order of £125 million if we were to play effectively our part in the European Payments Union, which was just being brought into existence. We have, in fact, made arrangements for the initial aid. Arrangements for the initial debit have gone forward, and we see no reason to abandon those arrangements or to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Bristol, North-West): When the Financial Secretary rose to reply, we on this side of the Committee had some qualms in noticing the change of bowling, because he is notorious for his constructive gestures and obstructive actions. I think that the speech of the hon. Gentleman showed how far the Socialist Government have slipped in the very matter which his colleague enunciated so clearly a short while ago about the proper use and control over Government expenditure. We are now told by the Financial Secretary that the Civil Contingencies Fund has become a cog in the machinery of European payments. With respect to the hon. Member, who was not here at the time, that was never the objective of the Civil Contingencies Fund when it was established. It was intended to be used for internal domestic purposes within our own country and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), pointed out, domestic purposes of a very minor nature.
5.45 p.m.
It seems to me we are up against this problem: What is in fact a civil contingency? It now appears to be something which happens on the continent of Europe and outside our own shores altogether. When the Financial Secretary said a moment ago that he had already explained to the House why this Fund should carry a sum of something like £125 million, I thought he exemplified in that one sentence the difference between us and this matter. We do not agree. We believe that this whole matter has to be tightened up and this would seem a good opportunity to do it, hence the Amendment. If that opportunity is to be taken one of two things can be done. Either the Treasury must alter the name of the Fund altogether and drop all pretence that it exists for civil purposes; or say quite frankly that they are not pro-

posing to use this Fund—which is what we should like them to say—but propose to finance this from some other source altogether.
We on this side of the Committee feel that it is an excuse for keeping the Civil Contingencies Fund at an unnecessarily high level. I think I noticed the Economic Secretary asking under his breath how the matter could be done if it were not done through the Civil Contingencies Fund. That is the argument of every parent who goes to his child's money box—"From what other source am I to get money for my beer if I don't take the pennies out of Tommy's money box?" It is the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman to tell us how, but in fact he has had a suggestion from my hon. Friend who asked about the Exchange Equalisation Fund.
We remember the history of that Fund. Some of us were in the House when the Exchange Equalisation Fund was established in 1931 for the purpose of ironing out day-to-day fluctuations in the £ exchange. That Fund also grew in size to a figure which some of us regarded as unwieldy. We on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the reasons given by the Financial Secretary. Perhaps his colleague will produce better ones. But it seems to me that the case put by my hon. Friend is one that should at least be considered by the Government; that the Civil Contingencies Fund is being used for purposes for which it was never intended, that it is too high and that the time has come for a re-examination of the whole matter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Perhaps the Financial Secretary would enlighten the Committee on one point. I appreciate it is necessary for some fund to advance this money, but it does not seem to me to be appropriate to use the Civil Contingencies Fund. I do not think that is the purpose for which the Fund was set up. Speaking from almost complete ignorance, I should like some elucidation of the reason why the Exchange Equalisation Fund cannot be used for this purpose.

Mr. Jay: The short reason is that this money has to be advanced to the Intra-European Payments Account in order that the proper accounting arrangements under Marshall Aid generally for conditional aid may be carried out. It is not


possible under the constitution of the Exchange Equalisation Account that that account should advance money to the Intra-European Payments Account. That is the reason why.
Though the Exchange Equalisation Account can make advances necessary for the ordinary gold-free credits, as they are called, to E.P.U., it is necessary to bring the Civil Contingencies Fund into action for the purpose of what is called the initial debit which is what we are concerned with under this Clause. It arises from the method of accounting for conditional aid, and, as I said, from the fact that the Exchange Equalisation Account cannot make advances to the Intra-European Payments Account. It is a real difficulty, and so far as we have been able to discover, this is the only possible and convenient method of dealing with it.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: That seems a most extraordinary answer from the Financial Secretary. If he will look at subsection (3) he will see the words which govern its application are, "urgent services." Nobody could possibly pretend that the subscription of an initial debit is an urgent service. It cannot be. Until the hon. Member spoke I understood that the whole of this Clause was designed to make the cover of American conditional aid come at a later date for the payments we might have to make; and in mentioning initial debits and that sort of thing he is going outside the terms of the Clause.
As I read subsection (3) it is possible for advances to he made from the Civil Contingencies Fund without any assurance that they will be covered in the future by American conditional aid, and I ask for an assurance that any amount we may pay will in certitude he covered by American conditional aid.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for his answer to my question. But it would seem to be much more reasonable that the Exchange Equalisation Account should be used for this purpose than that the Civil Contingencies Fund should be so used.

Mr. Jay: That was considered, but it was thought that it was a much more complicated arrangement. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), I do

not think he has quite appreciated the point. I would first give him the assurance, for which he asked, that any funds advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund under this Clause will be repaid from Marshall Aid sources under conditional aid. He said, however, that he understood the Clause related simply to conditional aid, and in that he is perfectly correct. He went on to say that he was surprised, or shocked, to hear we were using it for the purpose of making available the initial debit through the Intra-European Payments Account. But an initial debit is of course the obverse of conditional aid, and because this Clause relates to conditional aid it is under this Clause and by this arrangement that we make arrangements for the initial debit. If he thinks the matter over he will see that it really is the most practical way of doing it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ISSUES OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN DEBTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before we part with this Clause I wish to ask one thing. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the necessity for this Clause is due to an "outstanding debt" from Denmark of some £22 million. May I ask the Financial Secretary what is the definition of "outstanding debts"; what has caused them; how many they are likely to be, and any other information on the subject he can give to this Committee?

Mr. Jay: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the questions and answers in the Second Reading speech of my hon. Friend. Briefly an outstanding debt is an already existing long-term debt owed to a member of the European Payments Union at the time when the Union began to operate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is this outstanding debt connected with sterling balances, or is it something entirely different, and if so how did it arise?

Mr. Jay: The amount of debt we have in mind here is, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, a kroner debt


by Denmark to this country, not a debt by this country to Denmark, and the purpose of this Clause is to enable the debt to be taken over from the Exchange Equalisation Account.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(AMENDMENTS OF EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION AGREEMENT.)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 18 and 19.
If it meets with the approval of the Committee, I should like to deal at the same time with the following Amendment, also on page 3, in line 19, at end, add:
Provided that no such amendment shall take place until a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The Amendment is designed, as was the first Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), to check the very wide powers which are granted under the Bill. The Economic Secretary said—I think, rightly—that all of us on both sides of the House want to make the European Payments Union a success and that we want to do nothing which might show that we were half-hearted. On the other hand, that does not mean that we should give the Government a blank cheque.
Leaving aside all the questions with which we dealt on Clause 1—I do not wish to go back on that now—it will be seen from the Clause that even after the Bill has been amended the Government still have power to amend the existing Agreement. What it is proposed should be taken away from them, however, is the power to make any subsequent agreement between a new lot of members, as might happen if, for instance, the Government for one reason or another wished to change the whole fundamental structure of the European Payments Union; or if some great change was to come about, such as, for instance, a change which we should all welcome, Eastern Europe becoming a partner at some future time. Before such a change took place, however, the Government should have to come to the House and submit the broad basis of that change.
We do not want in any shape or form to curtail the powers for which the Government asked on Second Reading and which they obtained from the House, but we say that, the Government having got those powers, it is quite unreasonable to enlarge them in the way Clause 4 allows them to do in order to embrace any further permutation of countries and events which may arise. We want to see that the sums of money which we have voted and the confidence that we have given to the Government are used for the purposes for which such confidence and money were given. If, however, there is to be any extension or alteration in plan, then before such an alteration takes place the Government should come to the House to ask permission.
I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, in whose name the Amendment stands, would agree that where any such alteration has been proposed in the draft form which carries on or extends the principles to which we are committed on both sides, we would be the first to agree. The reason for putting down the Amendment is to have a check that at all stages Parliament has an opportunity of seeing how this great scheme evolves in the course of time.

Mr. J. Edwards: If I had not already gone a very long way to meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Friends on Clause 1, I should have thought that what he has just said would have had greater validity. Quite frankly I ask, is it the wish of the Committee that we should completely inhibit our representatives on the Council from making the sort of consequential changes which they may find necessary or that may become necessary as the result of experience? It is quite wrong for the hon. and gallant Member to say that we are asking for a blank cheque. I have made it perfectly plain that I am now prepared to write at the top of this particular cheque, "In no circumstances to be more than £228 million." Therefore, there is no longer any question of a blank cheque. The limit has been fixed, and I think that everybody was satisfied.
6.0 p.m.
I should like, however, to say this. Clearly, if there is to be an entirely new agreement at any time, it would involve


fresh legislation; and if there are any substantial changes in the organisation or in the procedure under the present agreement, even though they do not involve any extra credits, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would bring those matters to the House. But I do not think any good cause would be served by seeking to amend the Clause in the way now suggested.
I have met the substantial point already on the limiting of the credits, and I hope that what I have now said would meet the other question and that we would really be able to face Europe in the knowledge that the House as a whole had said, "We recognise there may have to be changes here and there, and we leave those to be worked out." It may be remembered that I had a little to say about this on Second Reading. I think that the process of living and working together cannot be carried out if on every kind of occasion we have to come running back to the House. I have a good deal of sympathy with his view—it has been expressed in concrete form this afternoon—but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member not to persist with the Amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In spite of what the Economic Secretary has said, the Amendment raises a matter of the greatest importance. I admit that on one aspect the hon. Member has met us, and has done so quite fairly—that is, of course, in the matter of the amount to be written on his blank cheque; so far as the other aspect of the matter is concerned however, surely there should not be any radical change in the methods of calculating the amount of the credit, or in the strings that are to be dangled or anything of that sort, without the matter being brought back to the House. I agree that on any procedural matter, of course, it would be nonsense to say that every small detail has to come back to the House.
In spite of his opening remarks, the Economic Secretary has met us very fully by giving an undertaking that if there should be any radical change in the form of the agreement, he will induce his right hon. Friend to bring the matter before the House. On the basis of that undertaking, I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not necessary to persist in the Amendment.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I fully appreciate the terms, and the fullness of the terms, in which the hon. Gentleman has given his assurance. I ask him, however, to realise that when he talks about a blank cheque under Clause 1, although he may have limited that sum, by Clause 4 he has left the signature blank for anybody to sign. In lines 18 and 19 are the words:
or by any subsequent agreement made between all who are then parties to the European Payments Union Agreement.
It would be possible, theoretically, for the Clause to cover an agreement made by a whole new series of countries, none or only few of whom were members of the present Agreement. It would be possible for any radical alteration to take place.

Mr. J. Edwards: Mr. J. Edwards indicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I cannot conceive of any drafting to give wider powers in the application of an Act. I am prepared to accept the undertaking of the hon. Gentleman, but I should like it to be made quite clear that if, from what we have been told on Second Reading and today, any radical change is made in the constitution of the E.P.U., then it will be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform the House and to give an opportunity to the House to debate such a change. If I understand that aright as the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has given, then I should ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. J. Edwards: The undertaking I give is that my right hon. Friend will inform the House of any substantial or important change in the arrangements, quite apart from the question of the financial provisions for which we have made provision elsewhere.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Economic Secretary says that his right hon. Friend will "inform the House." I thought that the hon. Member went further than that and spoke of giving the House an opportunity for discussing the matter.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am sorry; that is something which I did say at the time. In the ordinary way, that is what we do. If something important happens, we have either a paper or a statement on it, and


then discussions take place as to whether the matter should be debated or not. It is in that sense that I give the undertaking that my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of the House to any radical or substantial change in the arrangements.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and in view of his assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. (Bill 41.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Hannan.)

ANGLO-CANADIAN TRADE

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Russell: The subject I want to discuss on the Adjournment tonight is Anglo-Canadian trade. It may sound a rather ambitious subject for a back bencher to raise, particularly as the last time it was discussed in the House it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who raised it. It is now nearly seven months, however since the House discussed, specifically at any rate, the question of Anglo-Canadian trade, and therefore no harm will be done if it is raised once again.
When I found myself lucky in the ballot for the Adjournment tonight I hoped that we might be able to have more than the usual half-hour which the Adjournment normally allows, but I did not expect that we should start quite as early as this. I hope that many other hon. Members who are interested in this subject will take part in the debate. This is a vitally important subject, and even if nothing else is achieved the debate will give an opportunity for the Minister who replies to say what progress has been made in developing greater trade between this country and Canada since the House last discussed this subject.
I want tonight to bring to the notice of the House instances of where we are

not paying enough heed to the Canadian point of view in Anglo-American trade and also to give some examples of where we on our side are not doing as much as we might do to stimulate greater trade between this country and the Dominion of Canada.
In the first eight months of this year, according to the Trade and Navigation Accounts, our exports to Canada totalled £79 million. That was a great improvement on both the first eight months of 1949, when they were only £52 million, and the corresponding period of 1948, when the total was still less at £44 million. Some substantial progress, therefore, has been made.
In imports, however, a different story has to be told. In the first eight months of 1948 our imports from Canada totalled £150 million. In the corresponding period of 1949 they were down by £10 million to £140 million. In the first eight months of 1950 they fell still further to £120 million. I know that that may be a way of reducing the dollar gap between ourselves and Canada, but the Canadians are a little resentful about this because they feel that as they are taking more from us, we at least should not reduce our purchases from them but should try to keep them at the same level.
There is also great bitterness in the three prairie provinces because we are buying grain from Russia when Canada could supply much of it. When I say there is bitterness, I am speaking of three or four weeks ago, when a distinguished Canadian paid a visit to those prairie provinces. In the first nine months of this year—and I am again quoting from the "Trade and Navigating Accounts"—we bought from Russia 6½ million cwt. of barley and 1½ million cwt. of oats. Incidentally, I am sorry that the Trade and Navigation Accounts do not give quantities in tons much more than cwts. I am sure it would save a great deal of cost in printing if at least one figure could be dropped in each of the numerous groups of figures in these accounts.
In the same period—the first nine months of this year— we bought no barley or oats whatever from Canada, yet, if one goes back to the pre-war period and takes the corresponding period of 1938, one finds that we bought from


Canada roughly the same quantity of these two cereals—barley and oats—as we have bought from Russia in the same period of this year. Indeed, we have bought no barley from Canada since the war, and no oats since 1947. I agree that Canada cannot support herself with maize, which is the other important coarse grain which we get from Russia. Canada also used to supply us with more bacon than she is doing at the present time. She also used to supply us with hams, which are now not coming at all, yet we are going behind the Iron Curtain for bacon and getting some of it from Poland, when we might be getting it from Canada.
Mention was made in the last debate that we had on this subject, which was about two years ago, of the fact that the Government of Nova Scotia had asked their apple growers to uproot their apple trees and would pay five dollars each for the uprooting of trees which grew apples of a type suitable for the British market, and that was despite the fact that many of Nova Scotia's orchards had been planted specially to cater for our market. In 1948 and 1949, we obtained no apples at all from Canada, but, happily, this year we have again had some substantial imports, mostly from British Columbia. We have also had substantial imports of apples from Australia.
It was the clumsy handling of our trade two years ago which stopped the imports of apples and caused Nova Scotia to take that very drastic action—which always reminds me of the action taken in regard to swollen shoot disease in Africa—in paying a subsidy of five dollars per tree for every tree uprooted. That action obviously overlooked the fact that one cannot plant a new tree in place of one uprooted and get apples from it for at least four or five years.
Yet, this year, up to 30th September, in addition to the apples which we are importing from Canada and other Dominions—and everybody is glad that that is the case—we are importing something of the order of 4,000 or 5,000 cwt. from foreign countries, largely the United States and Italy. In fact, according to figures which I have obtained from the Ministry of Food, we have spent £659,000 on imports of apples in the first nine months of this year. I wonder whether apples were available from

Canada in preference to the United States, and whether there were not apples available in other parts of the Empire. It does seem to be a mistake to spend £659,000 worth of American dollars on apples which we might have got from other parts of the Empire, and, possibly, from Canada in particular.
Then, I understand that we are buying 50 million lb. of Cheddar cheese from the United States. I am sorry to have to chop about from cwts. to tons and pounds, but it does show that we ought to have some more standardised system of measurement for these quantities of goods. After all, most of them are indicated in cwts., though some are shown in tons, and tea and rubber are usually shown in pounds. Concerning this 50 million lb. of Cheddar cheese from the United States, I want to ask if there was not some cheese available from Canada. We are buying a certain amount from Canada in any case. Was no more available from New Zealand or any other parts of the Empire? Again, in the first five months of this year, we have bought 287,000 cwt. of dried eggs from the United States and, again, one would like to ask whether none was available from Canada, which has supplied us with dried egg in the past.
May I pass from these subjects, none of which are within the supervision of the hon. Gentleman's Department, to one that is, and that is timber? I believe that at the moment we are getting all the timber we can from British Columbia, but not from the eastern part of Canada. In fact, there has been a steady decline in the last three years in our imports of timber from Canada. What has been Canada's loss has been gained by Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, France, Brazil and other unspecified foreign countries. I have taken the information from the Trade and Navigation Accounts.
Another vital commodity on which we have fallen down very badly in regard to Canada is newsprint. I do not intend to say much about that, because we have discussed it before and I believe we are to discuss it again next Friday. I hope that any hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that the newsprint situation has been well handled in the last four years would do what I did last night—browse through 10 or 12 German newspapers—which are taken day by day and placed in the


Library. They would be surprised at the number of pages in these newspapers, in comparison with those which we have at present. When I say German newspapers, I mean newspapers produced in the British and American zones of Germany, and in which the average number of pages is considerably higher than anything we enjoy over here today. I think that Germany has some domestic source of wood pulp which may help her a little more than we are able to be helped at present, but it does seem rather ironical that the Germans, whom we defeated only five years ago, should now be better off in this way than we are.
I turn to the subject of exports, and, again, I want to begin with some remarks on the Canadian angle, which I feel we must watch. Our chief exports at the moment, so far as value is concerned, are motorcars and textiles. I believe that we are exporting cars at the rate of about 70,000 a year, and, in the first nine months of this year, we earned £16 million worth of Canadian dollars by our exports of motorcars. That has had one unfortunate effect in Canada; it has knocked the bottom completely out of the secondhand car market. I understand that the Canadians now buy a British car as their first car instead of a secondhand Canadian car because we are exporting so many cars to Canada. Therefore, the secondhand market in Canadian cars has been rather severely hit. I begin to wonder whether this can go on for ever, and whether we can expect to go on exporting cars to Canada at the rate of 70,000 a year without soon reaching saturation point. Regarding textiles, I gather that some of them at any rate are competing very severely with Canadian textiles and causing unemployment and part-time working in the industry.
The Canadians would like us to broaden our exports very considerably instead of concentrating so much on those two main items, motorcars and textiles. For instance, there are machine tools. In the first nine months of this year we exported to all parts of the world £12 million worth of machine tools. Of that amount, only £678,000 worth went to Canada, whereas £1,250,000 worth went to countries behind the Iron Curtain, and £1,333,000 worth to other countries in various parts of the world.
I suggest that what Canada received of our total exports—only £678,000 out of £12 million—was not a very fortunate share. I imagine that nearly all these exports must have taken place before we had the debate on machine tools during the emergency Session of this House, and that therefore the situation may improve without any further steps being taken. However, I gather that Canada could take a much greater quantity of machine tools than she has been getting from us up to the present moment.
Then there is electrical machinery, particularly dynamos and generators, which the Canadians are very anxious to have—especially the heavy types used in connection with hydro-electric power—in greater quantity than they are getting at the moment. Our total exports of generating sets and generators under the classification given in the Trade and Navigation Accounts for the first nine months of this year amounted to £12 million, of which Canada's share was only £467,000, whereas more than £4 million worth went to Russia. I fully appreciate that the type of equipment which we are sending to Russia may not be suitable for Canada, and that, indeed, it is probably not even suitable for this country, but could not some of our factories be persuaded to manufacture a type suitable for Canada so that we could send the Canadians more of this valuable machinery instead of sending it behind the Iron Curtain.
I am told on very good authority that Canada could take all the steel we can spare at the present moment, that is, since the rearmament programme started. It may be that six months ago that was not possible, but I understand that owing to the terrific demand for steel created by the rearmament programme Canada could now take all we could let her have. Our tinplate exports to Canada do not appear to have been very great because in the Trade and Navigation Accounts for September she is not even separately quoted. As a result of the shortage of steel, brought about more particularly, perhaps, by the rearmament programme, Canada is now forced to buy steel from Belgium and Luxembourg, yet the Trade and Navigation Accounts for September show that out of £113 million worth of iron and steel manufactures exported to all parts of the world, only £5,750,000 worth went to the Dominion of Canada.
Under the 1949 agreement with the Argentine we are due to send £7 million worth of iron and steel manufactures to that country every year. I have not had time to calculate whether, in fact, in the first year of that agreement—1st July, 1949, to 30th June, 1950—we were able to send £7 million worth of such exports to the Argentine, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us on that point later on. What I wish to point out is that those exports will do nothing towards helping the rearmament of Western Europe, Canada and the United States of America, and from that point of view it would be much better if they were going to Canada.
Again, Canada needs nonferrous metals, but under this agreement with the Argentine we have undertaken to send £2,500,000 worth of such metals to that country every year for the duration of the agreement. I understand also that Canada could take certain chemicals, oil refining machinery and domestic products, such as cutlery, pottery, glassware and china, and also cement. But out of our total exports of cement, which amounted to £6,750,000 in the first nine months of this year, only £390,000 worth went to Canada, and a slightly larger quantity to the Argentine. There, again, I wish that a larger quantity could have gone to Canada and less to the Argentine.
There are many things which Canada is importing from the United States which she would like to take from this country instead. They comprise machinery and parts of machinery, and domestic electrical appliances. I know the difficulty over the type of appliances made, specifications, and that sort of thing, but, surely, it is not beyond all possible hope to overcome that difficulty. So great is the amount of trade between Canada and the United States at the present moment, as was pointed out on the last occasion we discussed this subject, that if only 16 per cent. of Canada's imports from the United States was transferred to the United Kingdom it would double Canada's imports from this country. If we were able to transfer that amount of imports from the United States, it would obviously not damage the American trade to any very great extent.
The point arises, of course, in what other way can we make dollars avail-

able. Last week I tabled a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I know there is nothing new in it; it has been suggested before—asking if he would allow exporters of British goods to Canada to retain 10 per cent. of their dollar earnings for their own use, the idea being that that 10 per cent. might be some sort of an incentive to firms to export more of their goods to Canada in preference to other countries. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who replied, said:
Proposals of this kind have been very carefully examined, but I am satisfied that the objections are too great to justify their adoption.
When I asked him a supplementary question on the point of incentives he said:
… there is a great risk that such a scheme would cost more dollars than it would earn.
He went on to say:
It would be difficult to ensure that those people who had worked to earn dollars and those whose work enters at an early stage into the production of goods for export would receive a fair share of the reward.
He added:
I think the difficulties are quite insuperable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1900.]
I suggest we ought to try that method. I do not believe we shall ever solve difficult problems in this country without doing a little experimenting. If we experiment and it is a failure, nobody is going to be worse off, and, at least, we would have tried. I understand that certain foreign countries are using that method to stimulate exports. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, nods his head. Cannot we try it? Are we, at least, examining the results of methods employed by foreign countries with a view to using them for our own benefit? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will impress upon the Treasury, who, I suppose, are responsible for deciding this point, to try and examine methods used by foreign countries. I believe they might stimulate exports to Canada still further and, in that way, they would be valuable.
In passing, I might say that if I ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade a number of questions of which I have not given notice, particularly on the subject of food, I shall appreciate it perfectly well if he cannot answer them in detail.
Lastly, I believe we have to pay attention to what, for lack of another word, I call the sentimental angle in approaching this question of Anglo-Canadian trade. I make no apology. After all, as the "Financial Times" had in a headline the other day, "Blood is thicker than dollars." I should like to see His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom say to His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada, "We will stop making contracts for grain with Russia or with countries of Eastern Europe, or contracts for bacon with Poland, if you, the Canadian Government, can help us to overcome our dollar difficulty by some other means, such as allowing us to pay in sterling or to balance our dollar account over a number of years."
I am open to correction, but I understand that Holland is buying, or has been buying recently, canned salmon from Canada and is paying for 90 per cent. of it in sterling and only 10 per cent. in dollars. Is it not possible for this country to come to some similar arrangement with the Canadian Government? At least, if we approached them on this subject, obviously any suggestion like that would be received with the greatest possible sympathy.
I understand that Sweden will not let us have any more timber unless we let them have more coal—and I read that before the announcement yesterday that we shall have to import coal. That is going to be a very difficult hurdle to surmount. In contrast with that attitude on the part of foreign countries—and I make no complaint against any individual country—the Canadians are out to help us. On the other hand, countries of Eastern Europe from which we buy bread and bacon are out to smash the British Empire and all that it stands for. The Argentine stayed neutral in two world wars, and one cannot put it otherwise than say she has taken a certain amount of advantage of the shortages of various commodities to extract high prices from our Government bulk buyers. It is only fair to mention, however, that she also has had to pay high prices for some of our exports, noticeably coal.
Canada, on the other hand, has helped us all along. There is no need to mention the very magnificent war record of the Canadians, nor their loan afterwards, which was three times as generous as that

of the United States, taking into consideration the difference in population. Then there are the gifts of various kinds sent to this country from time to time. I should like to ask whether those who are concerned with developing Anglo-Canadian trade remember these things when they cancel an allocation of dollars without very much warning, as, unhappily, has been done in the past. Do they ask what can be done to overcome these dollar difficulties, and have they the urge to buy as much as possible from Canada? In other words, are they Canada-conscious? I believe we must adopt that attitude if we are to develop more trade between this country and our second Dominion. Surely it is much wiser to increase our trade with Canada, if necessary at the expense of trade with Russia or the Argentine or any country behind the Iron Curtain. Surely this essential trade with the Empire countries must have priority over trade with foreign countries.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I listened with sympathetic interest to what the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) said. I came in intending to agree with him, so far as I could; and let no one decry what he said about sentiment entering into these things. I remember serving in a battery, early in the First Word War, alongside two Canadian gunners. Sentiment does mean something. Canada came into the First and Second World Wars with us. This sentiment is not to be decried.
I have no political spite or malice whatever in my make-up. I am always prepared to listen to any view from the other side, objectively and sympathetically, but I could not understand from the hon. Member's speech what exactly he wanted the Government to do. If he wants my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to be Canada-conscious, then I am all in favour of it. But, it seemed to me, that the remedy in the cases he has mentioned lies very much more with private enterprise than with the Government.
I belong to a section of the community which is the most important section so far as the economic world is concerned, namely, the consumer section. That is about my only interest in business. If it were not for us consumers, business would


have no reason to exist. It is we who have to take the product, whether Canadian or British. All the time that the hon. Member for Wembley, South, was speaking, I had a feeling that the root of the matter is the failure of business people, on both sides of the Atlantic, to study what the consumer requires.
The hon. Member mentioned Canadian bacon and cheese. I have been eating bacon and cheese for 60 years, and I know the difference between good bacon and bad bacon, between good cheese and bad cheese, from the consumer's point of view. I am not in the least ashamed of confessing to being what the French call a gourmet. Apropos Canadian cheese, a few weeks ago I was on the island of Achill, off the west coast of Ireland. I stayed in a little hotel where, sometimes, they brought me bacon for breakfast. One day I said to the maid, "This bacon has come straight from Heaven." She replied, "Indeed, no Sir, it is after coming in from Castlebar." But I have never felt like that about Canadian bacon.
There is something about the North Americans—I do not know what it is—that they cannot produce succulent bacon and either cannot or are not willing to produce good cheese. The only thing I can say about Canadian cheese is that it is better than New Zealand cheese. I wish the hon. Member for Wembley, South, could induce his Canadian friends to study the market and see what people in Denmark or Ireland, or in my own county of Wiltshire, can do about bacon. I think the Canadians have something to learn.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the very large Canadian imports from the United States and said that he would like to see these substituted by imports from Great Britain. So would I; so would most of us on these benches. We are all in favour of it. But I wonder why Canada looks to America. For many years I got my living as a journalist, and when in Canada I was impressed by the extent to which American magazines and newspapers, with all their advertisements, circulated in that country. I believe that nine-tenths of all advertising is meretricious, thoroughly bad, suggestio falsi, of no intrinsic worth; and although American advertising makes the Canadians think they want American goods, I doubt whether they really do.
I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) in his place. I think Birmingham can make quite as good stuff as any American town. The trouble with the people of Birmingham and, very largely, with the people of our country, is that they do not make their wares sufficiently known. They should employ somebody like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to make their wares known and to counter the effect of American advertising in Canada. I am not sure that the hon. Member's speech should have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I think it should have been addressed to private enterprisers, on whom both England and Canada very largely rely for this trade.
I can assure the hon. Member that the House is very much obliged to him for having raised this important question and, on the whole, I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree with him, although we want to be a little careful before we say we are determined to reduce to the absolute minimum our trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain. Nobody detests Communism more than I do; I loathe the bare thought of it; but I do not think the way to get on with the world behind the Iron Curtain is to say that we shall have nothing to do with it. The hon. Member made a useful speech and I shall await with great interest my hon. Friend's reply.

6.43 p.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: I listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I could not help thinking that he should turn to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, and ask him to bring into this country some of the manna from Heaven which he tasted in Ireland. We, also, should like to taste some of the wonderful Irish bacon. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), raised this subject on the Adjournment because I regretted that during the extremely important Debate on Canadian trade, which took place recently, the Government benches were so sparsely occupied. At no time was I able to count more than 17 hon. Members on those benches. I believe that to be a very sad thing, in view of the importance of Anglo-Canadian trade.
Sincere though the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, obviously was, I felt that he missed the boat, particularly in his remarks that British manufacturers had no idea of how to put their stuff over in Canada, and also in that part of his speech in which he blamed private enterprise. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade paid a visit to Canada not so long ago to see what could be done to improve Anglo-Canadian trade. If the criticisms of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, are well-founded, then the right hon. Gentleman should have come back to this country and called attention, through the Press and through this House, particularly when he had the opportunity in the recent Debate, to the shortcomings of English manufacturers. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, I can only assume that he is fairly well satisfied with the manner in which British manufacturers, British private enterprise, are approaching the Canadian market, and with the support he is receiving in what I hope is his drive to capture more Canadian trade for this country.
We in this country should realise the tremendous opportunities which now exist, and which are likely to expand in the near future, for Anglo-Canadian trade. Of all our Dominions Canada probably has the most tremendous natural resources and she has, too, that which is not so evident in some of our Dominions—a healthy climate. The white population of Canada is about equal to that of the other three white Dominions and the purchasing power of Canada is as great as, or greater than, these other three Dominions. In 1948–49 the population of Canada was 12.9 million. In the United Kingdom, as we know, the population was 50 million. Yet the purchasing power of Canada, per capta, was even then 25 per cent. above that of this country. The population of Canada is expected to rise to 13½ million by 1951 and the purchasing power to 34 per cent. higher than that of this country.
I suggest that that is an indication of the tremendous opportunity which exists for Anglo-Canadian trade. In 1948–49 Canada was the third greatest external trading nation, and she is the biggest importer of manufactured goods in the world. On a per capita basis the capital development programme of Canada is the greatest of any country in the world. Her

13½ million population have a consumption of electric power which is the same as that in this country. Further, there are great schemes in hand for the expansion of hydro-electric power in Canada.
When we discuss the question of trade we have always to consider the aspect of stability. Because of her resources and because of the character of her people I believe that Canada is one of the most stable and sound countries in the world today. This is made amply clear by the very considerable flow of American capital which has gone into Canada and which is still going into Canada. I believe that Canada has reached a dynamic stage in her industrial development and will demand big markets for her raw materials and farm products, and I believe that the rapid expansion of Canada will pay amply for any attention which His Majesty's Government may now give to that country not only to develop an immediate trade with her but also to lay the foundations for a steady expansion in the future, as the expansion of Canada takes place.
In 1938 the exports of the United Kingdom to Canada amounted to 339½ million dollars. In the same period France's exports were a mere nine million dollars. Defeated Germany was exporting 18 million dollars worth of goods. In 1948 there was a large increase in our own exports and in the exports of France and there was a recession in the exports of Germany. In 1949 our exports to Canada had risen to the very large figure of 705 million dollars, although I believe that figure to be capable of very considerable expansion.
I turn to the question of imports which, at this stage, is of far more importance to this country, so far as our own trading position is concerned. In 1938, in the case of the United Kingdom, imports amounted to 119 million dollars. In 1948 the figure had risen to 299 million dollars and in 1949 to 307 million dollars. There had been a very considerable slowing down between 1948 and 1949. Although the figures for France were very small, they were 6.7 million dollars in 1938 and 13 million dollars in 1948–49. The reason I have given these figures is to show that Canadian imports were running at a figure less than half of that for exports in the same period. I know that that is a difficulty with which the Government are faced today. Despite this figure, it pro-


bably represents a greater increase in the volume of exports than in the volume of imports.
I believe that, particularly in the next five years, we must very carefully watch the competition we are likely to have from ex-enemy countries. The 1949 figures for Germany, for instance, small as they are, show a four-fold increase of exports. What are the manufactures which are going from Germany to Canada, and why are they going there? Is it because of price, because of quality, or because of delivery? Are we to experience an intensification of competition from other ex-enemy countries? Will Japan come into the market and try to capture Canadian trade because she can give better quality or lower prices? Is this situation arising because the Canadians are beginning to think of British goods in terms of high prices and not, as was the case in the past, in terms of high quality?
We must consider this question and it must always be in the forefront of the Government's mind. I know that the Government are concerned with endeavouring to reach a balance of reciprocal trade; this their chief concern, and they are undoubtedly and rightly concerned at the fact that at the moment the figures are running in Canada's favour. But in the present state of development in Canada I believe this to be inescapable. Although the greatest importer of manufactured goods, the potential purchasing power of her 13½ million people is obviously much less than that of our 50 million people. Quite clearly, that is one of the difficulties with which the Government are faced in endeavouring to strike a balance, and I believe it reinforces very strongly my hon. Friend's request that some efforts should be made to reach agreement for the excess, the over-purchase, in the case of this country to be paid for in sterling or by some other means. Of course, per capita, Canada buys twice as much from us as we buy from her.
We should co-operate with Canada to lay the foundations for the future. Canada's attitude towards us in the future depends upon our understanding now, and I believe that every effort must be made to maintain our exports. At the same

time, we must strive to import from Canada the farm produce and the raw materials which she has so that Canadian employment may be maintained at the highest level, and may be maintained at the highest level because of her close trading link with this country.
There is a danger in cutting down imports from Canada because it may well undermine the good will which has always been evident in Canada towards this country. I believe that if we cut down imports now, we may abolish the desire to buy British in the future. That cutting down of that desire to buy British would certainly be followed by an intensification of foreign competition in the market which I believe to be the greatest potential market for British goods and British trade in the future.
Competition is a natural cycle of events. Competition will increase. Already, the sellers' market is ended. Manufacturers—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to a certain degree—must pay attention to market requirements. They must pay great attention to quality; they must pay attention to delivery dates; and they must give firm prices. I believe that that is absolutely essential. Canada is a country with great good will towards us, for she is a country comprised very largely of men and women of British stock—of British descent—who would prefer, all things being equal, British merchandise to merchandise coming from any other country.
To maintain this we must ensure that there is a very high level of emigrants from this country to Canada. I have been very concerned at the fact that in the past few years the tide of immigrants into Canada from this country has been overtaken by the tide of people from other countries of Europe, and particularly from Eastern Europe. I believe that it is essential that there should be, at this stage in Canada's development, a constant infusion of British blood into the Canadian stock, in order that the desire to maintain the links that have existed so long with us shall be perpetuated for the benefit of Canada's trade and ours, Canada's industry and ours, and Canada's future and ours. During this time of Canada's adolescence the Government and the people of this country must show good will and every


effort to help her, so that there may be forged during this vital period still stronger links and bonds between us; and I believe that these associations will reach full maturity when Canada reaches her full stature, as I am convinced she will, as a great trading nation and first-class Power in the world.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I came to the Debate intending to listen rather than to take part, but I found myself making a number of notes when the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), was speaking, and, although I have nothing particularly new to add, I think it may be as well to draw attention to one or two particular points.
I am in considerable agreement with many of the things the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden) has put before us. One of his points—and one of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. South (Mr. Norman Smith) also—was that there is a great deal of good will between this country and Canada. That cannot be too much stressed. There is. I should like hon. Members to remember, however, when we are talking about Canadian trade with the United States, that there is also a very great deal of natural good will between Canada and the United States. When my hon. Friend stresses the influence of advertising through glossy American magazines circulating in Canada I think he should remember that a great part of the American influence in Canadian life is due to the fact that most Canadian families have members on the other side of the international border. There is a very close connection there.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman stressed also the fact that Canada is now in a period of great expansion. I think he is quite right. The developments in the economic scene in Canada were fairly fully referred to in the debate a few months ago, and I need not go over them again, but I think we should do well to remember in this country that Canada is on the verge of becoming one of the really great Powers of the world. I think a large number of the younger generation of Canadian leaders in both industry and politics have that conviction themselves. I think if one looks at the beliefs and

sayings and careers of some of the younger men in Canadian public life today one finds a complete absence of any sense of national inferiority to the major Powers, or anything of that sort, but rather, on the other hand, the presence of a feeling that Canada is on the way to greatness. I believe there is no doubt that she is.
On the economic side of the development of Canada I think we have a great part to play, and, here, I would agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Canada, in her economic life, is on the verge of a tremendous expansion. I think we could assist very materially in that expansion. We are in the difficult position just now that our traditional trade—trade in manufactured goods—is tending to shrink. As countries all over the world develop their own manufactures we cannot carry on with our traditional 19th century lines of exports. However, at the same time that that is happening there is a tremendous amount of capital development going on in various parts of the world, and it seems to me that with our strong manufacturing tradition and manufacturing skills it is now possible for us to develop a very considerable trade in capital goods, and, in that way, to make something of a change-over from our 19th century part in world trade to a new and equally important part in 20th century trade.
I believe that Canada provides a very striking, immediate illustration of the possibilities in that particular field. Canada cannot rely on her own possibilities of capital equipment to make full use of her natural resources, and we can quite definitely help. For that reason I am inclined to agree with an hon. Member opposite—I forget which one it was for a moment—that the export of cars should not be the "be all and end all" of our export trade with Canada. It seems to me a slightly unnatural development. It does, however, show something—the tremendous resiliency and resource of our manufacturing trades in the export markets, that we can put into the Canadian market the really astonishing proportion of motor vehicles that we are doing. But it does not seem to me to be a completely permanent line of export activity, and I should like very much to see developed the export of iron and steel products, engineering goods, and, generally speaking, of capital equipment,


which Canada will need so much in the future.
I think it is worth while reminding ourselves that we are doing that. Our exports of iron and steel manufactures to Canada have been considerably increased this year over those of last year, according to a written answer I have just received today from my hon. Friend's Department. There has been, in fact, a general tendency towards increase. It is not an increase merely of a temporary nature. We can, I think, keep on with it. By doing that we shall strengthen the bonds between Canada and ourselves in the human and social spheres, and in the political and broader, national spheres, as well as in the economic sphere.
I should like to note one point in that connection, and a point of some considerable importance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the visit of my right hon. Friend to Canada earlier this year. One of the results of that visit was announced just the other day—the establishment of what are called the "Athlone scholarships," by which Canadian engineering graduates will be able to come to this country for their further post-graduate training—not necessarily, I hope—and I trust that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend will note this—in universities and technical colleges only—but also in industrial concerns. That, I think, will have a long term effect that will enable us to build up our connections with Canada in the engineering industry—in the supply of capital goods; because these people, going back to Canada, will know our makes, our methods, our standards, our firms, just as today Canada's technicians and technologists know those on the southern side of the international border. There, we have the beginning—and it seems to me a very sound beginning—of a long range movement to bring our heavy engineering—indeed, all our engineering—industries more closely into touch with the needs of the Canadian market.
One last point. I think, too, that in recent months in trade in consumption goods there has been a remarkable improvement in some respects about which, a year ago or so, there was good deal of quite justifiable criticism—in methods of marketing, of advertising, of packaging, of delivery times, and so on. I think there

are reports from all sides that there has been a lot of improvement in that way. However, I feel very strongly that our economic connection with Canada should mainly be in the sphere of capital goods, rather than in the sphere of consumption goods, as it still is at present.

7.7 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), has raised this question. Anything that we can do to bring ourselves and the Canadians closer together is most valuable. I agree with all that has been said about the great future there is in front of that country and the need that there is for us to consider very carefully Canadian views and doubts. They are trying at present to tread a very difficult path—to maintain and develop their agriculture and natural sources and, at the same time, to industrialise. Well, we know how troublesome that is.
I happen to be a member of the Canadian-British Committee, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend mentioned such things as agricultural and forestry products and apples. The same things were discussed when we were in Canada last year and again when the Canadians were over here this year. These matters were put forward to the Board of Trade. I know quite well what tre Canadians said about them, and I am delighted that they have been aired in the House tonight. I am particularly delighted because I shall be able to send the reply of the Secretary for Overseas Trade to the debate to Canada so that the Canadians will realise not only that we are doing all we can, but what is the Government's view.
On the other side of the question I am not quite so happy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), with whom I have a great deal in common, talked about the failure of the business men. He was only "pulling our legs," I know, because he was throwing the ball back to us, but I should like him and all hon. Members to know that we do not admit this failure. Not a bit of it.
A couple of years ago—the Secretary for Overseas Trade will correct me if I am wrong—the President of the Board of Trade called us together at a meeting at the Board of Trade and put to us the


difficulty of finding dollars to pay for the goods we wished to import from Canada, and asked us whether we would take the job on.
We undertook to form an organisation which was known as the Dollar Exports Board. We took it out of the Government's hands, and said, "Will you please leave this to us?" We provided the money and we ran the job. There were Sir Graham Cunningham and Sir Cecil Weir working with us on this side, and a number of very public-spirited Canadians, led by Mr. Duncan. That body has devoted itself to doing all it can to help in pushing British manufactures in Canada. The efforts which have been made and the success which has attended those efforts are, I think, worth putting on record as a wonderful performance.
It is rather hard for us in the motor industry to have it suggested that we are doing too much and more than our share. It is rather like being in church and listening to the parson lecturing us because there is such a small congregation—as though it were our fault. I think that we are doing our share, and I am certain that the Board of Trade do not want us to lessen it. I can assure hon. Members that they have only to give the British motor trade the hint that they are doing too much in Canada and they will soon put that right. They are robbing others to do it. They are cutting prices to get in, and we thought that we were winning medals by doing it.
My organisation has established an organisation in Canada. It is buying premises and building premises and putting stocks of spare parts all over Canada to help this business forward. I do not regard this as a temporary business, and I do not see why we should not be able to hold the market there. Why should the Canadians think that they have always to do exactly the same as the Americans. It is not the same country. In many ways it is different. They are finding the British motor car satisfactory we believe that there is a permanent market there, and we are seeking money. I do not think that I would shed any crocodile tears over the poor second-hand motor car dealer there. If he is anything like as well off there as he is here, he is on velvet.
My friends in the textile industry feel much the same. They are expecting

medals for what they are doing. I do not think that we ought to suggest that the industries which have done so well are taking rather more than their share. It is a difficult market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, pointed out, it is only an imaginary line that is drawn across the country. The people there go to and fro. As has been said, they are inter-married; they change jobs; they read the same magazines and they ask for what the Americans produce. Canada, up to a little time ago, largely thought and bought American. We are trying to educate them to a different way of thought, and it is not an easy job.
My hon. Friends here could probably tell us something about machine tools. When it comes down to electrical machinery, we have to remember that the Americans are there. The Americans own the capital in a great many of these organisations, and they are insisting upon their machinery and their designs going into Canada. We have lost business because American machines are already there on the job, and they want to pair up with them. As regards domestic electrical appliances, they find that ours do not suit and they say that we are out of step with them. That is not so. In many cases we were first in the field and our ideas have been Americanised; then they come back and say, "Why are you out of step?"
It is rather like the rule of the road in America. They say that we always drive on the wrong side of the road, but it is they who are driving on the wrong side of the road and not us. In the days of the horse-drawn vehicle, the driver used his right hand to whip forward. He could not use the other side of his vehicle because the hedges were there. When we took them over to America, they had no hedges, and they said that we were on the wrong side of the road. We cannot change over quickly because our home market is valuable, and we cannot make our people have something different because the Americans and Canadians have it.
It was only a few months ago that they did not want our steel. Now they do want it, and they are importing steel for rearmament. We certainly have not enough of the non-ferrous metals which have been mentioned. In many organisations we are slowly coming to a stand-


still for need of them. There is a world shortage of these things. I think the British manufacturers have done a splendid job in Canada, and I wish that more goods could go there. We have got to get every motor car and every bit of textile to Canada. We need to export all classes of consumer goods, and it is not going to be easy. To convert Canadian public services to our methods and models will be a slow and laborious job. Our manufacturers are tackling the job well, and, in the meanwhile, let us get all the consumer goods that we can, including motor cars, into that country.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I did not intend, in the first instance, to take part in this Debate. I listened to two-thirds of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), and I think that he is to be commended, not only for raising this subject, but for dealing with it in such great detail. I was prompted, however, to rise to my feet by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I could not but help feel that he laid overmuch stress upon material considerations. I for one do not accept his strictures on Canadian cheese and Canadian bacon. All I know is that during the war I was very glad to eat both.
I also know that when this country was plunged into conflict, the Canadians were not far behind, that not only were Canadian soldiers soon fighting along side us, but Canadian farms were harnessed quickly to serve the needs of British consumers. Frankly, I derive more satisfaction from eating bread and butter produced by my brothers in Canada, or for that matter in Australia, Rhodesia or New Zealand than I would eating bread and butter produced by some foreign country. At least, I would have the knowledge that in time of difficulty I was not likely to be cut off from my sources of supply.
I would suggest that the Government's policy in switching trade from Canada and the source of supply of so many vital commodities to countries east of the Iron Curtain has placed this country in an extremely vulnerable position. It is for that reason that I consider that nothing has been more disturbing in recent years than the deterioration which has taken place

in Anglo-Canadian trade relations. That deterioration has been paralleled by a considerable Canadian investment in the United States. How can 13 million people, stretched out in a long narrow belt along the American frontier, resist the economic pull exerted by the 150 million people of the United States?
I think that it was the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson)—and one expects wisdom from a Scot—who said that Canada was on the fringe of tremendous expansion. That, of course, is true, but it all depends on what moment in time we are starting our argument. It is not inappropriate to recall that Canada ended the Second World War, when Germany and Japan were prostrate, as the fourth industrial power of the world. It was Sir Wilfred Laurier who said that the 20th century would belong to Canada. That may be an exaggeration, but I think that the 21st century certainly will belong to Canada, if she can get the population to match her tremendous natural resources. But the diminution of the volume of Anglo-Canadian trade since the war, and the restrictions on emigration from this country are likely, I suggest, to force Canada—an unwilling Canada—more and more into the arms of the United States.
Trade is the cement that binds the constituent parts of the British Commonwealth together. The policy of the Government has done a great deal to weaken these ties during the last few years. There was the indecent haste with which contracts were terminated, and the still more indecent haste with which the President of the Board of Trade sent British steel, tools and other industrial equipment to the Russians. I think I am right in saying that the United Kingdom Mission which went out to Canada in 1948 reported that Canada offered a market for just those things which, in 1948 and 1949, as well as in the early part of this year, we were sending to the Soviet Union.
Surely one of the ways to overcome the difficulties between our two countries is to manufacture in this country goods which are suitable for the Canadian market but which hitherto the Canadians have bought in the United States. I do not wish to bandy any names across the Floor of the House, but I have it on very good authority that, since 1945 quite a number of Canadian firms who have


wished to establish subsidiaries in this country, with the object of manufacturing goods which they have been importing from the United States, have encountered such difficulties in the matter of permits, licences and so on that they have preferred to set up their plants in Belgium and in France. I am perfectly willing to let the Board of Trade have the details. I understand that some of these firms have established subsidiaries in this country.
If what I say is true, I suggest that there has been considerable lack of business drive and imagination on the part of the Government. Quite naturally, the North American is brought up in an atmosphere of freedom, and he resents restrictions which the Government have thought fit, in their wisdom, to impose on industry of this country.

Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Member give us any idea of what these restrictions are? Are they restrictions that factories must be built in the former distressed areas?

Mr. Brain: One obvious restriction is that no firm can establish a plant in this country without obtaining a licence, which in many cases involves considerable delay. The North American is accustomed—I am not saying whether it is a good or bad thing—to make quick decisions. He is probably unfamiliar with the conditions that have obtained here since the end of the war, which require other than purely economic considerations to enter into these matters. However, I do not think it would be wise to pursue the matter. But I do suggest that where Canadian firms wish to establish subsidiaries in this country, with the object of increasing sterling exports to Canada of goods which have hitherto been bought by Canada with dollars in the United States, they should be given the maximum encouragement.

Mr. Ross: Surely it is not fair to make this allegation, when many of us know that firms have been established in this country? A Canadian firm has been established in my constituency. It spends a lot of money and does a lot of good work for us. I remember Mr. Duncan mentioning at the opening of the factory that, from the inception of the idea to the opening of the factory, it had taken no longer than 18 months. That, surely, contradicts what the hon. Member has been saying?

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for emphasising the point I was trying to make in regard to North American business men. I am not prepared to argue whether 18 months is too long without having particular knowledge of the firm concerned. True, some Canadian firms have established subsidiaries in this country, but others have been so discouraged by the restrictions obtaining in regard to British industry that they have been persuaded to look elsewhere to establish their new factories.
The British Commonwealth would be relatively poor without Canada. Canada is the natural bridge between us and the great English-speaking Republic across the Atlantic. Canada has been at our side in two world wars. She possesses resources which will enable her, in a comparatively short space of time, to become a great power and exert great influence in world affairs. This is the crucial moment in her development. She is on the verge of so many great things, with her iron ore resources being opened up in Quebec, with her vast new oil discoveries in Alberta, and when the Americans are turning more and more to her for dairy products and other foodstuffs.
At such a moment Canada might have the chance to hold aloof from American economic sovereignty and so absorb British capital and emigrants. But if she is not given a chance she will become the 49th State of the United States. That is as inevitable as night follows day. We owe it to ourselves, to Canada and to the world, to speed by every possible means the expansion of trade with our Commonwealth partner in the Western Hemisphere.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), who speaks from a vast fund of knowledge drawn from his industrial experience. He, like me, does not claim to be a politician; otherwise, he would be nearer to his Front Bench. We all listen with respect to the views he puts forward, because we know that they are based on his knowledge of what is really going on.
I intervene in the Debate for the sole purpose of making it clear that no one on these benches wants it to be known, or thought, that the Government do not


fully recognise the work that has been done by private enterprise, particularly on the engineering side, in getting exports into Canada. Those of us who are practical people know something about the difficulties. This is not a job for politicians. They do not get the goods into the market. It is their duty to decide policy, and those of us who have been in the House during the last few years know what the Government have done. The Gilpin Mission did a very fine job. Canada is not a very easy market. Anyone who knows Canada will realise that there is no clear-cut line of demarcation between the greatest producer on cheap production lines, with her vast source of geological wealth, and Canada. We cannot sell just for patriotism and sentiment; it has to be a business proposition.
If there is one thing for which the Opposition and those who support private enterprise deserve a pat on the back it is the work they have done in the last four or five years in the export markets generally. I know something of the Government's difficulties. They want people to buy from us so that we shall have dollars to spend elsewhere. That is a difficult proposition at any time, to get someone to support by giving us dollars, knowing that our intention is to spend the dollars somewhere in the East. Canada, like Britain, is full of people who want to spend their money to their own advantage. That makes the problem all the more difficult.
The vast continent of Canada, for that is what it is, is in many respects an unexplored market, although the Gilpin Mission has done excellent work in this direction. It is hard enough to get orders for goods, but then we have to get the goods in the right place and see that they are serviced in the right manner. Private enterprise has sent out a lot of people to set up service depots, which involves a vast amount of capital. Those who know something about what has been done will want to pay their tribute, and it is only fair that that tribute should be paid from these benches.
I know that the Government Front Bench can put up a good case for making the best possible use of our production to increase our income in dollars, foodstuffs and raw materials, but the Canadians and the Americans, like everyone else, believe in charity starting at home; if

there is any benefit to accrue, they expect it to accrue to themselves. I know that this is a difficult proposition, but it would be wrong to let this debate pass without someone from this side, with knowledge of what goes on in private enterprise and nationalised industries, paying a tribute to those who are doing this work. As one who has been a junior Minister, I should like to place that tribute on record.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The House will be grateful for the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones), and for the tribute he has paid to private enterprise for its quite remarkable activities in the export field during the last few years. Many of us would not have regarded these achievements as being a possibility some three or four years ago. Our exports have exceeded all expectations, and our manufacturers are to be congratulated on their results.
I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has said about firms wishing to come here from Canada and the United States having been refused facilities. The Board of Trade have, in fact, refused many licences to build factories for firms that originate from Canada and the United States. The Board of Trade will be the first to admit that. There may be reasons which determine this refusal, but it is not a question of location.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Member doubts that, perhaps he will ask his right hon. Friend for the details of the number of American and Canadian firms that have been denied licences.

Mr. Ross: If hon. Members opposite are contending that the Board of Trade have done something that is dangerous, they should go a little further and give us the cases, so that we may be able to judge. After all, the hon. Member is making the assertion. I know that there may be cases where licences have been refused, but I rose to ask where the factories were to be built.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth. I did not say it was dangerous, but merely stated the fact that this has been done. There may be room for the view, which


I understand is the view the Board of Trade takes, that there are other projects likely to be of greater potential value to the community. I am not in a position to judge whether or not that is so, but the hon. Gentleman must not try to put words into my mouth.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member would agree with me that there are cases where permits to build are withheld. In some cases there are good reasons why. For instance, it would be foolish to grant licences to build factories only to find, when the factories were built and the labour and machinery were available, that raw materials already being used in other factories had to be diverted to the new factories and that as a result people in the other factories were put out of work.

Mr. Shepherd: I agree that there may be many reasons. Defence factors might have to be considered. It might be that a home product had a greater export potential than one from Canada. I was not saying that the Board of Trade were doing us a grievous disservice; I was saying that my hon. Friend was right when he stated that licences to build factories had been refused to firms resident in Canada or the United States who wished to establish subsidiaries here.
On the issue of Canadian trade I do not take quite the same view that some of my hon. Friends take. Much disservice is done to Anglo-Canadian trade if we merely say that all the fault is on the side of Great Britain and all the good will on the other. The pattern of trade between Canada and Great Britain was established in an era when we could draw upon a very substantial invisible export and that time will not recur. The war shattered all the vast reserves we had in the form of invisible exports and it was obvious, after the war, that there would have to be a very painful readjustment of our relations.
There has been a failure on the part of some Canadians to face up to the realities of the situation. I visited Canada late in 1945. I said to the Canadians, "You must forget what happened in 1939 in terms of trade." They scoffed at my view that the old pattern could not possibly return. They said they had established big industries and they must carry on as they did before the war.

Nevertheless, the old pattern cannot return.
Some of my hon. Friends give the impression that we do not buy enough from Canada, but the figures do not bear that out. In 1938, we bought from Canada goods worth £78 million and we sold Canada goods worth £22 million. In 1949, we sold to Canada goods worth £79 million and bought from Canada goods worth £224 million. It is true that we were able to buy these large quantities through the generosity of our Canadian friends, and to some extent they were the result of purchases on Marshall Aid account. So the pattern has not changed. We cannot carry on with that pattern because we cannot depend for all time on the generosity of the Canadians and the Americans.
There have been faults on both sides in our trade relations. The harshness of some of our decisions has struck the Canadians as being most unfair. We were particularly at fault during the period of the all too easy optimism during the last Parliament, when Sir Ben Smith promised the Canadians that we would buy all that they could produce. He has now gone to another sphere to radiate his optimism, but the damage done to our trade relations remains. I do not know what the President of the Board of Trade said when he went to Canada, but he left a very unfortunate impression there.
I want to disabuse the minds of some hon. Members of the idea that Canada is a wonderful market and an easy one for British manufacturers. That conception is the most naïve of all. If as a manufacturer I wanted to tackle either the American or the Canadian market from the point of view of ease, I know which one I should take. The Canadian market has been incredibly difficult for our people. There have been more complaints about price and quality from Canada than from any other market. Canada wants to buy British quality and variety at the same price as she pays for standardised American goods. We cannot possibly meet that demand.
Also, it is very easy to tread on Canadian toes. A short time ago I heard complaints from Canada that we were putting Canadian textile mills on short time. We must face up to these difficulties and not imagine that Canada has wide open arms and is seeking our goods.


Another thing is that the duties on some of our goods to Canada do not compare favourably with those to the United States. The duty on men's leather footwear going to Canada is 25 per cent., less Imperial Preference, but in the case of the United States it is only 5 per cent.
It is essential that we sell more to Canada. I am pleased to think that in the last six months we have done extraordinarily well. I hope the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to confirm the prevailing figures. I find that whereas, in 1949, we exported to Canada only £79 million worth of goods and imported £225 million worth, in the first 10 months of this year we have been exporting to Canada at the rate of £120 million worth of goods per annum and have reduced imports to £176 million worth of goods.
That is a remarkable achievement upon which, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, private enterprise is to be congratulated. We can increase our exports to Canada still further. We still do only a small percentage of the machine tool trade. We are still bemused by the idea that the Americans have something over us in the matter of machine tools, but that is not true. Although we have doubled our exports of machine tools to Canada since the Gilpin Mission went there, we still have a long way to go.
I have made these observations on the difficulties of the situation bearing in mind all the time the fact that we must achieve good trade relations with Canada and also the sentimental ties which bind us together. However, there can be no real answer to the problem short of two things. One is convertibility and the other is the development of production in the Eastern hemisphere in order to remove the disparity between the productive capacities of the Eastern and Western hemispheres. I am not sorry that we have had this difficult and trying period. There had to be a readjustment of our position in relation to not only Canada but all the nations with whom we trade because we have to make good in some fashion or other the markets which we previously had in the form of invisible exports. During this period, in which there have been faults on both sides, we have brought about a very considerable readjustment of our trade and I believe that we are now on

lines which will determine the pattern of our trade with Canada.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate will make it clear that the Government are most anxious to do all they can to increase trade with Canada and to be sensitive to the difficulties in which the producers, particularly of agricultural products, have been put by the constant changes in policy. We want to see trade restored in harmony with our Canadian friends, but it must be clear that the difficulties and faults are not all on the side of this country and that the Canadians, as well as ourselves, have to look at the problems in the light of the conditions prevailing after the war.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not differ from anything that has been said by my hon. Friends. I wish to deal with a practical engineering problem which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). Also, I agree very much with what has been said by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones).
Here is a matter on which the Board of Trade can do something to help the engineering industry. Undoubtedly, the further development of our exports must depend very largely on the further development of our exports of machine tools and engineering products generally. At the moment the Canadian user is largely tied to American engineering standards. The difficulty which we had in the machine tool industry when we tried to break into the Canadian industry, with its standards of electrical equipment which were quite foreign to us, will be well known. I wonder if more could be done to bring the Canadians over to our side so that they would accept more British standards and British engineering specifications instead of the American ones. If the Government could help in this direction it would be of the greatest assistance.
British private enterprise, which, despite some of the suspicions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is going out to Canada, is doing a frightfully difficult job extremely well. It would be a profitable partnership between the Government and private enterprise if the Government would do all they could to encourage the acceptance of British engineering standards in the


Canadian market. It is not an easy job. It would be helpful if we could bring more Canadian technicians over here and have them in our industries and our technical institutes. I stress this because it would enable us to do more business fairly soon in Canada instead of it being a long-term and very expensive job for the manufacturer who may send goods out and find them rejected because they are not of the required standards.
An hon. Member spoke about supplying capital goods to Canada first and all the time. We must realise that in the long run Canada will be a highly efficient and well developed industrial country and will become a formidable competitor to us in the export field. It is a difficult problem to decide the right course to adopt. I see the hon. Member for Rotherham smiling. He knows the problem just as well as I do. Although I realise we must do business with British machine tools in the Canadian market, it sometimes makes one wonder if one is not making more efficient a very powerful future competitor. What we must try to do is merely to take away business which is at present placed in the American market. On that basis, I do not think this country will be loosing anything at all.
I hope that our pattern of trade, when it develops, will also include a substantial component of consumer goods so that they will be used to demand even more goods, and we shall get repeat orders again and again. After all, power station equipment is a very valuable export, for which repeat orders are not given in five minutes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), that we should maintain our car exports, for as a result repeat orders will come to this country.
May I return to my first point? I hope that this matter will be borne constantly in mind. I must apologise to the Secretary for Overseas Trade who, I understand, is to reply to the Debate, because when I conclude these few remarks I must leave as I have an appointment to keep. I hope he will forgive me, and that the matter will be borne in mind.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I intervene only because of something that was said by the hon. Member for Cheadle

(Mr. Shepherd) regarding the convertibility of our currency and overseas balances. If that is to be a condition of the full blossoming of our trade with Canada, we shall have to be very careful and weigh the position for some considerable time before such a condition of international trade is established. It would be far better if we developed the already extensive trade between this country and Canada by loosening some of the import and export restrictions.
If we could permit a greater liberty on importing Canadian products to this country and also negotiate for freer exportation of our goods to Canada, it would result in a more profitable line of trade development than by seeking further reliefs and increase of trade in the direction of the convertibility of the pound sterling. We had a rather unhappy experience in that direction some two years ago, and if we are desirous of increasing valuable trade between this country and Canada, we should look in the direction of easier exchange and imports than for a greater amount of convertibility of sterling.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear in the short reference which I made. I take the view that we should approach this problem in two stages. Firstly, we should, as a result of the improvement in our gold and dollar position, buy more from Canada and certainly they would buy more from us. From that stage we might aim at convertibility, because the whole problem of world trade will not be solved until we get convertibility. I do not see how we can get convertibility without some export and import restrictions, although much less rigorous than at the present time. It would be foolish to rush into convertibility and abandon all export and import restrictions. That would indeed be disastrous.

Mr. Harrison: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because I misunderstood completely his reference to convertibility, which was probably due to the fact that he was sparse in his comment on the subject. I agree with the sentiment which he has just offered, that we can aspire to convertibility ultimately, and that the way to it is along the road of increased inter-trade between this country and countries like Canada, Australia and New


Zealand. I hope, too, that the Minister will say something about the position of the triangular trade between this country, Canada., and the Caribbean possessions. That trade was important prewar and must become so again.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: The point that I was anxious to raise with the Minister was the point briefly mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison)—the triangular trade between this country, Canada and the Caribbean possessions. I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who pointed out that the prewar pattern of trade with Canada has ceased to exist, that some of our invisible exports have disappeared, and that the disappearance of the pre-war pattern is certainly one of our main troubles in trading with Canada today. My hon. Friend mentioned the harshness of some of our decisions, and I think that nowhere is that statement more applicable than to the currency restrictions imposed on one of the triangular links with Britain, the trade between the Caribbean Colonies and Canada.
It might be thought at first sight that this is a problem for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I do not think that that is the case. He does not need persuading in favour of facilities for trade between the Colonies, for which he is responsible, and Canada, on whom they so much depend. This is really a matter for the Board of Trade and the Treasury, and I should like to make to the Minister some suggestions, which I think are worthy of consideration, and which lead me to feel we ought to ease up considerably on trade between Canada and the West Indies if we are to secure a proper place in the Canadian market. Particularly is that the case in view of the difficulties of the Canadian market. It is by no means an easy market in which to maintain ourselves, and if we can also maintain a footing there through the West Indies trade that will be a considerable advantage to us in our trading relations with Canada.
It is worth remembering that, in the system of imperial preference upon which our own trade is largely dependent, the preference on trade between the West

Indies and Canada was one of the first, if not the first, to be established. It became a kind of prototype for later agreements and one of the corner stones of the trade between this country and the western hemisphere. The disappearance not so much of preference but of dollar products in the West Indian market has had a very serious slowing up on the whole economy of the West Indian Colonies, and that, in turn, is choking the channel of trade between this country and Canada through the West Indian triangle.
Anybody who has visited those Colonies will realise how deeply dependent British Honduras is on Canadian and for that matter American trade; and likewise are Barbados and Trinidad, to select two more Colonies which are particularly affected by the dollar problem. It will thus be realised how desirable it is that we should increase as much as possible their trade with Canada. The reduction of dollar imports in these Colonies has caused a considerable rise in the cost of production, and in consequence has made it more difficult for goods to be exported from those Colonies to the Canadian and other dollar markets in which they used to play unimportant parts.
I suggest to the Minister that we cannot consider Anglo-Canadian trade simply as an isolated problem, or a bilateral trading position, and if we want to make the most of our trade with Canada we have to regard our West Indian Colonies as in many respects in the same position as ourselves and on our side of the fence. If we wish to play a fully effective part in our trade with Canada I think the restrictions on dollar trading with them must be considerably eased. I have in my hand a Press release which gives, not the text, but a kind of foresight of a proposed relaxation in this dollar trade. It suggests that in certain groups of commodities dollar trade will be permitted between these Colonies and Canada and the United States at 50 per cent. of the amount annually exported in 1946 to 1948; and then there is a second group in which the figure is 33⅓ per cent.
The amounts there are, of course, a quite considerable restoration of this link in our trade with Canada through our Colonies. But, from the point of view of the Colonial economies, they are not enough, and I would point out how the continued paralysis of the trade between the West Indies and Canada costs us dear


in the Colonies in the long run. We have to make good deficiences, if not directly from this country in the form of subsidies, social welfare grants and so forth, then by asking a higher price for Colonial exports and in the long run I believe our exchange position is damaged. I hope that in any future action in this field of Anglo-Canadian trade the Board of Trade will bear in mind the important part our Carribean Colonies used to play in it, and ought to play once again.

8.2 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I join in the general appreciation paid to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) for raising this subject on the Adjournment and I express personal thanks to him also for giving me advance notice and information to enable the debate to take a better form. It can be said that the debate has certainly not run on party lines, and neither should it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made some comments which I am sure could equally have been made from the other side of the House, and the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) showed his normal practical common sense on these subjects and might equally have made the reply from the Government benches.
Substantially, the core of the discussion has been that we are now selling more to Canada and therefore we ought to buy more from Canada. But that ignores the fact that in recent years expenditure in Canada has exceeded our earnings and we have only been able to bridge the gap by getting Marshall Aid, Canadian credit and other assistance. I need hardly recall to the House that when the dollar gap was acute the then Chancellor of the Exchequer called a conference and the whole of the sterling area decided they would limit imports. To a large extent that has put us in a favourable position today.
So if we have an improvement in our balance of payments situation today, we have to be very careful before we consider how we shall let up. Our dollar expenditure is not worked on a bilateral basis with Canada and I am sure that would not be suggested. The sterling area as a whole is the trading unit and I imagine it would be the wish of us all that that is how it should be. I am

bound to say that the Chancellor last week emphasised, and secured the agreement of the Commonwealth countries in this, that we must build our reserves to an adequate level and maintain strict economy in dollar expenditure. As hon. Members will know, the hon. Member who led for the Opposition fully supported that statement and I think it must be the united desire of us all to do all we can, consistent with our economic well-being.
We must recognise, as I am sure we all do, that this market is of long-term importance to Canadian producers and manufacturers. Particularly must we remember how liberal they have been in assistance to us and, therefore, we have a special obligation to assist as much as we can. The Government policy is therefore to obtain as much of our requirements from Canada as we can afford to pay for in dollars, always with the proviso that as good businessmen we must take care that the goods are supplied at competitive prices. Having accepted that, as a result of our improved conditions we have been able to resume and increase our purchases from Canada.
I will give some illustrations. Our purchases of most of the raw materials—I mention softwood, wood pulp and newsprint—are limited by the Canadian ability to send us what we want. Of raw materials, for 1951 we shall import a good deal more than we did in 1949, or than we have been able to import so far this year. We are purchasing substantial amounts of softwood. I think one hon. Member asked if that included the East Coast and if I would make mention of that. I can say that supplies will come from the East as well as from the West and we are also expecting shipments of softwood from Canada in 1951 to be comparable with the peak post-war year of 1947. We have also resumed the purchase of iron ore and pulp wood.
Supplies of manufactured goods are limited because of the principle that we can only buy what the amount of dollars we have enables us to buy. But in this field we have been as helpful as we can. Hon. Members will know of the token import scheme to which we are giving further consideration. It is hoped in a short time to make an announcement of our programme for 1951. I give the assurance that we shall do as much as we can


consistent with that economy necessary to meet our present position.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers) made a point about the West Indies and Bahamas market in particular. What has been foreshadowed in the Press will in fact happen. Relaxation on these goods is not best for us in our own narrow, selfish interest, but the Canadians have asked us to do it and we have met their wishes. In this respect we are limited because what we are enabled to do for the Canadians we are compelled under international obligations to do for the Americans. We are doing what we can in purchasing manufacturing goods.
As far as Governments are concerned, the closest relationship and understanding exist between the Canadian Government and our own. The United Kingdom-Canada Continuing Committee which has been established deals with trade and economic affairs and meets periodically to consider economic and commercial matters. I have taken a special interest in Canadian trade. Indeed, I think that I am nearly a member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I go to their meetings as often as I am invited, which, I am very pleased to say, is frequently. By that personal association much information can be gathered and many of the difficulties smoothed out. Relations between the United Kingdom and Canadian Governments are very happy and both sides are anxious to pursue the right policy in the common interests of each country.
It has been suggested that we should stop buying agricultural products from Eastern Europe. If we were to do that, and to accept the suggestion which has been made from the other side of the House, that we should ask for payment in sterling or for deferred payment in dollars, it must be recognised that this would mean in effect asking for another credit from the Canadian Government. I am sure that that was not the intention of the hon. Member who made the suggestion.
As the hon. Member for Wembley, South, said. I cannot answer with complete authority some of the questions he has put because they are not within the purview of my Department, but for the purpose of this Debate I have obtained

as much information as I could following his earlier intimation of the subjects which might be mentioned. On the question of foodstuffs, let me refer. for instance, to bacon and cheese, about which a point was raised. Our contracts in 1950 will absorb all that Canada can supply. We are entering into discussions about our future supplies. From British Columbia we have bought tinned salmon, on which we have spent 5 million dollars, which is a rather large amount, considering the comparatively meagre amount of available dollars.
I was asked about apples, for which the Canadians have a market and in which we should like to encourage them. It is only shortage of dollars which prevents our buying more. We have, nevertheless, made provision to spend 2,500,000 dollars on apples. In reply to the query about whether we would take some from Nova Scotia, I give the assurance that we will do so. This will help that part of Canada, which, like the rest of the Dominion, has been so generous in its help to the United Kingdom.
So far as wheat is concerned, the greatest part of our wheat supply comes from Canada, and all the dollar flour which we buy comes entirely from that country. It is true that for coarse grains we have turned to Eastern Europe. It must be recognised, first, that Canada is not a traditional supply market for this kind of grain, and it is doubtful whether, because of transport difficulties and other considerations, Canada could meet the supplies which we need. Even if they could, the problem would arise that because of our shortage of dollars we could not be provided at the same time with the wheat and flour which, after all, is the prime interest of the Prairie farmers. Therefore, the extent to which we are able to obtain coarse grains from elsewhere releases a reserve of dollars to enable us to buy more of the essential foodstuffs which Canada has and wants to supply to us.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South, was supported by other hon. Members in wanting to know about steel. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said that some time ago we had plenty of steel and that not all of it was taken up. That is in part true, but, as he rightly said, the position today is that everybody wants steel. We have recog-


nised, however, that in the case of Canada we have a special obligation. Let me give figures to illustrate what is happening in the export of iron and steel and manufactures to Canada. In 1950 these exports are running at an annual rate of 209,000 tons, or more than twice as much as in the previous year. The figures of these exports to Canada over the last few years are as follows. In 1947, we exported 17,200 tons, or a value of £796,280. In 1948, 30,859 tons, or a value of £1,403,048. In 1949, 65,728 tons, to a value of £2,629,250. In 1950 the exports for the first 10 months were 174,096 tons, or a value of £6,908,000.

Mr. Russell: Of all kinds?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. Those figures represent an approximate annual rate of 209,000 tons, which indicates a very substantial advance, and shows that private enterprise, the Government, and everybody concerned with exports, have done a magnificent job. I ought perhaps to add that I have not included steel tyres, wheels and axles, which accounted for an additional 9,141 tons.
I was asked whether we could not have an incentive scheme. I assure the House that the greatest care has always been given to the question of dollar incentives. The Treasury and industry have been consulted time and time again. We have found it difficult to come to any decision. It is even more difficult now, when rearmament takes an equal place with our exports to dollar markets. Would it be right to say that those engaged on rearmament should be deprived of an incentive? We are continually giving consideration to this difficult question and shall continue to do so, but at present I can say nothing more.
The hon. Member referred also to the export of heavy electrical plant and other equipment. The deputy-chairman of one of the greatest electrical concerns in this country has recently been on a tour to Canada, and I am very glad to have had a letter from him in which he said how efficient and valuable were the services of the United Kingdom Trade Commissioners in Canada. I appreciate his remarks. I ought also to say that as a result of the efforts of electrical manufacturers, large orders running into several millions worth of dollars have been placed in the last few weeks. They

include schemes in connection with public utilities such as the Ontario and Quebec hydro-electric authorities, as well as others. Orders and work of this kind provide the kind of continuing development which will bring great value. Other engineering products, particularly since the Gilpin Mission, also have gone ahead.
As Sir Harry Gilpin rightly said, we cannot neglect a market for 30 years and then expect it to be an easy one. It is, in fact, a difficult market and I join in the tributes which have been paid to all those who are doing their best to retain their place in it in spite of the hard struggle.
The export figures show that in 1948 our exports reached a monthly rate of 24.4 million U.S. dollars. There was a slight increase in 1949, but in the third quarter of 1950 the figure rose to 30.6 million dollars. For October, it was running at the rate of 33.7 million dollars. That shows that we are pushing exports as much as possible, and the hon. Member for Edgbaston is entitled to say that pride of place goes to the motorcar industry, though near to it come the wool industry and steel. They are all to be congratulated. There are many other things that might go into the substantial market of Canada—clothing, coal, pottery, cutlery, cement, glassware, agricultural tractors, whisky, electrical generating equipment, printing machinery and the like—all show a steady increase.
I recall that a Canadian farmer came to see me recently. I make a practice of seeing any Canadians who want to see me because I regard it as part of my job to do so. This farmer refused to believe that he could get into a Government Department so easily. He told me that on his farm he had roughly 60 articles in use, and that only about a dozen of them came from this country. Some of the things he mentioned are included in the list I have given, but there are still many other goods that can still be sold in the Canadian market. That is not in any way to discount the admirable work done by industry generally, but there are some industries which could do a little more, and, if they would make an effort like that of the motorcar industry, we should be well on the way to providing the extra dollars needed in order to import those goods that we require.
One hon. Gentleman mentioned trade with Argentina, and said that if we


stopped our trade there and did more with Canada, how good it would be. As a matter of fact, in part, that is what is happening. Exports to Argentina fell from £52.5 million in 1948 to an annual rate of £36.7 million in 1950, whereas in the corresponding period our exports to Canada have increased from £72.8 million to £118.7 million. I think we could say that dollar exports are being pushed ahead in the way that we would wish, and I repeat that the Government give dollar exports equal priority with defence.
There was a little discussion between one of my hon. Friends and two hon. Gentlemen opposite about the limitations placed upon Canadian industry or its subsidiaries in coming here. Let me say that the special control is exchange control, and I think everybody will agree that we cannot allow unlimited investment in this country which would involve us in a liability to transfer back to the dollar area the profits and dividends earned. Therefore, the control has to be judged by the extent to which it is likely to increase our own capacity to produce essential commodities or to save dollars, and I am quite sure that it would not be right for us to agree that, while industry should be checked on the basis of what contribution it can make to the national economy in this country, outside industry should be able to break through these regulations, which have been so helpful in enabling us to overcome our economic difficulties.
Another hon. Gentleman raised the question of Japanese and German competition. Exports from Germany to Canada are running at the rate of less than one million dollars a month. It is not so much, but we have to keep a watch on it. Exports from Japan to Canada are at the rate of less than two million dollars a month. Exports from the United Kingdom are running at the rate of nearly 34 million dollars a month, and any action to be taken must be taken by the Canadians or by our own manufacturers. We must keep in step with those other countries which are able to compete successfully with us, and, in that way, make our contribution. The Government will give whatever assistance it can to industry to enable it to meet competition with other countries.
Finally, I think the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) asked what

we are doing about standards and making sure that others in Canada are acquainted with our methods of production and our supplies generally. I am sure the House will be pleased to note—it has been mentioned before, I believe—that the Government have a scheme of fellowships whereby engineering students are encouraged to come to this country. They are called the Athlone Fellowships, and it is hoped by these means to make the Canadian engineers aware of our products, their potentialities and the standards we have set.
I hope I have been able to cover all the points mentioned, and I will conclude by saying that I speak not only on behalf of the Government, but also, I think, on behalf of all hon. Members when I say that I realise the importance of our trade relationships with Canada and that we all genuinely desire to see them strengthened and will do all we possibly can towards that end.

CORACLE FISHING, WALES

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Donnelly: This House has a long tradition of extending a very generous hearing to problems of small groups of people, so I know that I have to make no apology tonight for raising at this late hour the problem of the coracle fishermen on the river Teifi, which runs between the borders of Pembroke-shire and Cardiganshire and which winds itself round the borders of Carmarthenshire.
The history of this problem is, very briefly, this. The coracle fishermen on the river Teifi have plied their trade there since time immemorial. We have all read in our school history books about how they fished there, and this trade is still being plied on the river Teifi today. It has gone on for more than a thousand years, and it would be going on still without any threat were it not for a serious incident which took place before the war.
In the 1930's, as a result of the outcry of some sections of the community—the rod and line fishermen, who operate further up the reaches of the river—this trade had a limitation placed upon it by the Teifi and Aeron Fishery Board, who passed a local bylaw, which was confirmed by the Tory Minister of Agriculture at the time, following a public in-


quiry in the district. That bylaw said that no further licences would be granted to coracle fishermen, and that those held would die out with the existing holders of the licences or would lapse if any of the fishermen happened to be convicted of an offence of any kind.
Before the war there was some hope of the matter being re-opened as the result of a proposal to abolish coracle fishing altogether on the Teifi, but this was postponed owing to the war coming along. As a result of the gradual dwindling of licences and the dying out of the holders of licences, we have now arrived at the situation where there are very few holders of licences under the age of 70, and in a very few years' time, unless something is done quickly to reopen the matter, coracle fishing will be a past memory and we shall have forgotten all about it.
It seems to me that there are two main issues involved. Foremost is the fact that the coracle fishermen earn their living, or at least a great proportion of it, by coracle fishing. On the other hand, the rod and line fishermen, for whom I have no bad feelings at all, carry on their fishing as a kind of sport. It seems to me, as one who considers the social and economic aspects of this problem, that those who are economically affected should have their interests considered before those who are concerned purely with amusement. Therefore, I submit to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the first issue involved is this question of those who are affected economically and those who are affected from the point of view of amenity, sport and amusement.
Then there is a second issue involved. I am not a Welshman, but perhaps somebody outside can sometimes see these things as clearly as those who have lived in Wales for a long time. I have been very impressed by the fact that coracle fishing has a symbolic interest for the people of Wales. It is one of the great ancient heritages of Wales. People from all over the world come to see this coracle fishing going on in exactly the same way as it has done for so many centuries. The Welsh Tourist Board have made a considerable feature in their brochure, drawing attention to it. People come from America and other parts of the world to see how it is carried on, and to see crafts-

men making coracles. It has been of considerable interest to historians and sociologists and, at the same time, it is a matter of considerable pride to the people of Wales that this craft should continue to exist.
Therefore, the second issue involved is that here is an ancient heritage which is now beginning to die out completely, and will die out totally in a matter of a few years. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), if they are fortunate enough to take part in this debate, may have some words to say about the more detailed aspects of this problem. But it is a matter of considerable urgency as far as many people in my constituency are concerned, and I should like to stress this.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries two questions, which I hope he will be able to touch upon when he comes to reply. The first is: How can this matter be re-opened? I understand that the new West Wales Rivers Board is to come into operation very shortly, in the new year. This will be taking over many of the operations of the Teifi and Aeron Fishery Board and of other boards which it incorporates. Is it possible to have this matter re-opened with that Board by representations from the district, or can the Minister, within his powers under existing legislation, do anything to re-open the matter so that there may be some opportunity for a completely fresh consideration, now that we have a totally different Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and a totally different Government in power?
The second question is: Is it possible to consider appointing a representative of the coracle fishermen on the Teifi to the West Wales River Board? I understand that other sectional interests, such as the seine net fishermen of the Teifi, are to be represented. I hope the Government will consider very carefully, and in a friendly manner, the possibility of appointing a representative of this section. It is perfectly true that it is a small section of fishermen on the river who are involved, but it is a very important section and a very widely publicised one.
This matter is one of considerable importance to the people of Wales and to all those who have a feeling for Welsh culture and Welsh history. It will be a profound tragedy if, in our own time and generation, the coracle fishermen of the River Teifi—a unique throwback to years gone by—were allowed to disappear finally from the scene without any action being taken by the Government to enable this kind of trade to continue in the future.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I wish to indicate my general sympathy with the observations of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). It is unfortunate, however, that he should attempt to attach any party political significance to this issue. It is an old question. It has never taken on any party significance, and, from the point of view of the interests of the men concerned, it would be most unfortunate if, in any way, it should be given a party slant.
Perhaps I should declare my interest in this matter. Ever since 1938 I have been the standing counsel to the Teifi Net Fishermen's Defence Association. This is a voluntary body, set up to attempt to protect the rights of coracle men in respect of the River Teifi, and in particular, of course, to see that their interests were safeguarded in so far as they conflicted with other fishing interests on the river.
I should also declare my interest in this subject in that I have taken a small part in this manner of fishing ever since my boyhood days. It is a matter of great pride to us that this ancient craft, the construction of which is a work of art, and the skill and ingenuity of this form of fishing, should continue. It would be a great sorrow to people who are not fishermen, but who have respect for matters of antiquarian interest and for craftsmanship in any sphere, and particularly for the skill and ingenuity of these fishermen, if this industry, this way of life, were to be abolished.
I do not want to go in detail into the history of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke. Unfortunately, as a result of the outbreak of the war, the full-blooded inquiry which should have taken place in September, 1939, was postponed. As a consequence, I believe that the full merits of the coracle fishermen's case have not been the subject of inquiry

since 1934, since when there have been many developments which would assist them considerably in their representations. It seems to me that the immediate point upon which we can ask for the Minister's assistance is the representation of this body of men on the new river board which is about to be set up and which includes within its jurisdiction the functions now exercised by the Teifi and Aeron Fishery Board.
I should like to refer first to the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act of 1923. Section 47 (1) of that Act governs the position with regard to representation until the new river board operates. The Act reads:
In every fishery district in which there are any public rights of fishing, and such rights are exercised by fishermen duly licensed to fish for salmon otherwise than with rod and line, there shall in each year be elected such number of members representative of the holders of such licences on the fishery board for that district as hereinafter mentioned;
I will not trouble the House with the details, but it will be seen that in that Act there are adequate provisions for the representation on the fishery board of the coracle fishermen, quite apart from rod and line fishermen and seine net fishermen; there is adequate provision in the Statute for separate representation for coracle fishermen.
I turn now to the provisions which will operate when the river boards come into existence. It seems to me that the relevant Section is Section 2 of the Act of 1948. The Act refers to the appointments as follows:
An order establishing a river board shall provide for the appointment of such number of members not exceeding forty as may be specified in the order, who shall be appointed as follows:
The part to which I want to draw attention reads as follows:
The remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and shall consist of—
(ii) persons appointed to represent fishery interests in the river board area after consultation with any association or person appearing to the Minister to represent a substantial fishery interest in that area.
While it is true that the overwhelming fishing interest in the area is that of the rod and line fishermen, it would be most unfair and certainly unkind to say that the coracle fishermen do not represent a substantial fishery interest in the area.


Quite apart from the principle that the Minister should act in accordance with the provisions and the spirit of the Act of 1923, where it was laid down that the body which was to govern these matters should have upon it a representative of the coracle fishermen, I think it is equally important that, now that these functions are to be taken over by the river board, that board should have upon it someone who is capable of speaking for and representing the interests of the coracle fishermen. That is right in accordance with the general principle of fair play.
It may well be argued that it could be justified on the basis "no taxation without representation." After all, these coracle fishermen have to pay for licences. The rules governing the conduct of their fishing will be laid down by this body and I respectfully suggest that natural justice dictates that these men should be represented on it.
It is important, from another point of view, that they should be represented. The question of their future existence and their future right to fish on the river may well arise. The question of the continuance of the present stringent conditions relating to these men and whether the industry should be perpetuated may very well come under consideration and it is most important that the Board which has to consider that question should have upon it representatives of this section of fishing interests. It is all the more important for this reason, that one of the reasons why any controversy has arisen in this respect is that there is a clash of interest between the rod and line fishermen and the coracle fishermen. It will place the coracle fishermen in an invidious position if the board which is to determine this matter has ample representation of the rod and line fishermen concerned and none from the coracle fishermen.
I would ask the Minister to consider this matter. The appointments are his responsibility. I am certainly not asking him to act without, in the words of the statute,
consulting any association of persons appearing to the Minister to represent a substantial fishing interest in that area.
I hope he will have further consultations, and that as a result he will see—for, after all, the final word rests with the Minister—that coracle fishermen are

given representation on the river board. I feel we are placing the Minister in some difficulty in asking him to make any pronouncement on the position relating to the by-laws, but I hope the Minister will invite the river board to consider—and consider most sympathetically—the revision of the present position, with a view to seeing that the use of these ancient craft for fishing is preserved.
It is only out of fairness to the men concerned that they should be considered. The economic arguments that could be used against them have been weakened, because most of the men—I believe all of them, but certainly most of them—have other occupations now or are retired. The sentimental arguments, the antiquarian arguments, the historical arguments, and the arguments on the ground of the picturesque, are stronger than ever. I hope that the Minister will first see that the coracle fishermen have proper representation, and afterwards do all in his power to see to it that the board engages itself in revising the position to see to it that this ancient pursuit is continued on the River Teifi.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: Colleagues of ours reading HANSARD tomorrow will be wondering what we have been talking about tonight—coracle fishing on the River Teifi. Perhaps it would have been better for those interested had a coracle by some means been brought to the House of Commons. I am sure it would not have gone very well on the River Thames because it flows too swiftly. However, unless we do get redress from the Minister after this Debate it will be a good thing to get coracle fishermen to bring a fleet of coracles to the Thames for the Festival of Britain.
I intervene because I am interested from the Welsh standpoint. The two hon. Members who have spoken already have done a great service to their constituents. This matter is of considerable interest to the Welsh Tourist and Holidays Board. The Board took the subject up with the Welsh Parliamentary Party last March and, as secretary of that body, it was my duty to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture sent us a reply stating that when the new fishery board was set up the matter would be reviewed. I find that the


South-West Wales River Board now has been set up, but that nothing has been done about this matter, and I understand that unless something is done very soon the whole problem will not be able to be tackled at all.
I suggest there are two things that the Parliamentary Secretary should look into at once. First, there is the question of the by-law itself. Provision is made for the new authority to take over the bylaws of the old authorities. If the Minister feels there is not sufficient evidence to continue that by-law I do respectfully suggest that another public inquiry should be held, rather than that he should decide that that by-law can no longer exist. The other matter is this. I am sure that the constituents of both the hon. Members who have already spoken will be glad that they have raised this point, which was raised very effectively by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), about the representation of interests on the Board itself. It was my intention also to quote from the 1948 Act, but there is now no need for me to do so.
I do hope that the Minister will look at this again, not only from the point of view of the coracle fishermen but also from the standpoint of Welsh tourism. In the three Counties of Pembroke, Cardigan and Carmarthen, all along the banks of this river and right away inland, there are such places as "Coracle" cafes and other places all deriving their names from the picturesque coracles. We in Wales would be very disappointed if this industry were to go by the board. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some enlightenment as to how something can be done, whether by the river board or not, in the next couple of weeks—not leaving the matter for as long as months—to give us satisfaction on this matter.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hale: I think that the Englishmen present should not be regarded as Philistines in the eyes of the Welsh on this matter. As a Member representing a Lancashire constituency, I envy people who have rivers in which fish can exist. I should have thought that it would have been in the interest of the Ministry to preserve this very picturesque way of catching fish. The coracle, of course, is something we usually associate with our early history. It is gratifying to

me to know that there are some people who, perhaps for economic reasons, still preserve this very ancient way of extracting fish from the rivers.
I believe it would be to the advantage of all in these islands if we could do anything at all to preserve this very interesting and ancient means of earning a living. The Welsh, of course, are among those who love ancient customs for ancient customs' sake, and I think that we near-Englishmen should give all the help that we can in preserving a way of life which is dear to some of us as well as to them.

8.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): One would need to be a Philistine and to have no imagination at all not to have enjoyed the last half-hour's debate, with its picture of an industry and a way of life, as I think someone called it, which, in many ways, is quite unusual to many of us in these islands. I had quite a nostalgic feeling of holiday time, and I almost convinced myself that the winter was not upon us while listening to this description of Welsh rivers and this wonderful way of going on which several hon. Members described.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who opened the Debate, told us he is not a Welshman. I must say that the Celtic vigour with which he pursues the various claims of his constituency and impresses them upon me has long caused me to regard him as nothing but a Welshman. I think that only a Welshman could fight so violently for what he believes to be in the interests of his constituents.
This is not so easy a problem as, I think, several hon. Members have pretended. There are a number of conflicting interests which come into this picture, and perhaps I ought to say a word, before suggesting how we can deal with it, about the problem generally. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) told us the history behind this matter. The Teifi Fishery Board, as we have been told, includes not only oracle fishing but all the other fishing industries. In 1935, it made a by-law prohibiting all netting in the non-tidal waters of the Teifi. There was a row about it, and, subsequently, a public inquiry was held. The then Minister confirmed the by-law, with a proviso,


arising out of the public inquiry, which continued licences for a certain class of coracle fishermen on the waterfront above Llechryd Bridge. This, obviously, had an affect upon the interests of other people.
I mentioned that not to state the obvious, but because it has not been mentioned in the Debate and has a bearing on something which I want to say. As I understand, the prohibition only applied above the bridge, which I have named once and will not attempt to pronounce a second time. Between that bridge and Cardigan bridge, I am told that the use of the river is limited solely to coracle fishermen, and, if that is so, there would seem to be no reason to assume that there is any immediate risk of this picturesque industry dying out, quite apart from the fact that I understand that it is quite a well-known feature of other rivers, including the River Towy.

Mr. Bowen: I think that the Minister is misinformed about the position in that respect. I understand that the operation of this by-law will, in time, mean the complete elimination of coracle fishing in the River Teifi.

Mr. Brown: That is not my information. We do not feel that it is quite as sweeping as that. I do not think that anyone has denied that it was the Fishery Board's point of view in 1935 that, in time, coracle fishing would disappear altogether, certainly above the bridge. That is what they were intending to do.
As to what can be done about it, the first thing to be made clear is that any initiative can only come from the area and not through my right hon. Friend. This question is covered by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, which, for this purpose, is not affected by the River Boards Act of 1948. Therefore, any proposals would have to come from the locality. My right hon. Friend's only function in the matter would be to act in a quasi-judicial capacity on representations made to him from the area. He would have to ensure that, whatever the proposition, it was, broadly speaking, fair to all the various fishing interests concerned, and that it was consistent with the principles of fish conservations. The Fishery Board have not seen fit to take the initiative, and the Board will be going out of existence in due time. The new board is in process

of being set up, but it has not yet taken over.
As the Fishery Board are not likely to take the initiative, the only other source from which it can come is, for example, the county councils, which, I am told, under Part IV of the 1923 Act, have power to ask for an order. If that were done, it would be for my right hon. Friend to take into account the various issues. One of the matters to be taken into account would be whether the decrease in the number of coracle fishermen since 1935, and the decrease in the fishing in that part of the river, has led to any great increase in the stocks of salmon. That would be the kind of question my hon. Friends could inform themselves about, as it would be rather useful in any discussion that takes place.
With none of these bodies taking any initiative in the matter, there is not much that we can do here. It is impossible for me to commit the South Wales Rivers Board to a policy when it takes over. Our view is that this kind of argument and grievance which has been going on for a period of many years is unhelpful. It is a sort of thing that we do not desire, which does not improve or add anything. Our view would be to look hopefully at any proposal which, without creating a new hardship in the place of the one it removes, would, nevertheless, bring about sympathetic and fair settlement of this long-standing problem. I go further than that and express the hope that that point of view will be taken into account by those with power to do something about it.
As to the question of representation of coracle fishermen on the Rivers Board, in regard to which my hon. Friend drew attention to the difference in the provisions for representation under the 1923 and 1948 Acts, it is fair to draw attention to the vast difference in the size of the respective boards, their responsibilties and their finance. The responsibility of the Rivers Board is so much greater than the fishery boards because the amount of money they will have to handle is so much greater. It is bound to be the case, with a small board, that we shall have fewer members left to represent purely fishing interests. On the other hand, the fishing interests will be much better looked after than in the case of a board with a large number of representatives.
The position is that the fishery interests are to have nine members. The appointments have not yet been made, but in making the appointments we shall certainly give due attention to the principles the hon. Member read out. I can give an undertaking that we will consult the fishery boards in the area about the initial fishery appointments. We shall most certainly consult the local interests and honour the undertaking I gave to consult the fishery boards. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to the appointment of any one of the nine members to represent any one group. Those fishery interests to be covered by the nine members are very wide interests indeed. I am told that they cover the whole of three counties and part of a fourth, with a very wide range of different types of fishing interests—coracle and other net interests, anglers of different types, riparian owners, and so on.
It would be wrong for me to commit myself to the allocation of any one appointment of the nine members, but I promise that we shall consult the local interests and certainly the fishery board. My right hon. Friend will do his best, having regard to the limited number of members and the wide interests to be covered, to give the fishery interests a fair representation, having regard to all the set-ups in the area. I cannot go very much further than that.
It is a difficult problem, but not because of any administrative shortcomings at this end. It is difficult because of some deep-seated and fiercely held local views and conflicts. That is the sort of problem which is much better settled in the area. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) that instead of bringing his armada of coracle fishermen from South Wales to interfere with the Festival of Britain, he should get them to settle the matter in a spirit of compromise in the area. We, for our part, will do nothing to prevent or spoil the effect of such an agreement.

NYLON STOCKINGS (IMPORTS FROM GIBRALTAR)

9.2 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I welcome the opportunity of raising the subject of nylon stockings. This is not a subject peculiar to women only. The name is never mentioned without calling men to attention, yet men may not have known, and most British women have not known, of a very quick way of getting as many nylon stockings as they wished. What I must call a "ramp" has been going on now for more than a year to my knowledge. More than a year ago certain people wrote to me telling me that while it was impossible for British women to buy nylons in British shops, they could get as many pairs as they wanted via Gibraltar. I waited and tried to discover the names of the firms and in what way nylons were reaching British housewives when they were unable to buy them in British shops.
Before I go on to relate my detective work, I ought to say that the question of nylon stockings is a question of economy. I know that gentlemen think that it is a question of the artistic look. It is both. Nylons look well and they also wear exceedingly well. In the long run it is a great economy to buy nylon stockings, as any women who has had the good fortune to have good nylons would testify. They are a real housewive's economy.
Very suddenly I was presented with the clue to get nylons:
As many pairs as you want and as many pairs as you want for your friends.
I can only conclude that the people concerned had reached the letter M in the Scottish telephone directories because they all sent me their price lists. They were: Messrs. Parsram and Company Ltd., Gibraltar; Messrs. M. & J. Abecasis, drapery outfitters, Gibraltar; and Messrs. A. D. Cohen, General Stores, Gibraltar. Do not let it be said that these nylons are cheap and trashy. There are seamless from 6s. a pair and fully fashioned at 10s. a pair, right through the whole gamut of nylons until we reach Dupont glass nylon Special-de-luxe at 22s. 6d. a paid. Each of these firms has a long list of varieties of nylon stockings. One of the firms goes to the length of saying:
As many pairs as required can be ordered at the same time. In payment only Postal Orders are accepted, but they will be despatched per separate airmails one pair at a time.


I have been told that one may order six pairs and that they will reach one in an ordinary envelope one pair at a time. I do not know what the idea behind this is, but I have a suspicion that it is to evade Purchase Tax and Customs Duty.
Therefore, I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th October. I asked to what extent nylon stockings being sold to British women in single pairs by airmail and despatched from Gibraltar were subject to Purchase Tax and Customs Duty, how many parcels had been intercepted, and how much in tax and duty had been collected to date. I received the astonishing reply—remember that this was 17th October—that since the end of March 373,533 pairs of British manufactured nylons and 7,517 pairs of foreign manufacture arriving from Gibraltar by post had been charged with a total of £58,660 Purchase Tax and, where appropriate, duty.
If we take nearly 400,000 pairs of British nylons which have gone to Gibraltar, come back again, and have been intercepted in five months, how many pairs have slipped in unintercepted and how many pairs can one reckon as coming in in one year? Anyone who is good at a little compound proportion might figure that out. I should imagine that pretty well one million pairs in a year might be the sum of nylons concerned.
It is a scandal and a ramp and something ought to be done now, indeed ought to have been done long ago. From inquiries which I have made, these nylons are going to Gibraltar by way of the export trade, and are returning in this way. I believe that it could be stopped if we treated Gibraltar and Malta as if they were the home market. I should like the Minister in his reply to say, firstly, if he intends to allow this ramp to go on; secondly, if he intends to stop it; and, thirdly, if in stopping it he can say by what figure he will reduce the number of pairs of nylons going to Gibraltar and by what figure he will make them available to British women in the only honest and sensible way, namely, through their own shopkeepers here.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I can speak again only by leave of the House. The hon. Lady for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) says

that the mention of nylons immediately draws a man's attention. I can assure her that that was not the reason I was called to attention this evening; it was because the hon. Lady gave me notice a little time ago that she was going to raise the matter, and in the short time at my disposal I tried to find out as much information as I could. The hon. and gallant Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson), who by virtue of his office seldom gets a chance to speak, passed me a note asking me if I was being paid overtime. I am not. I suppose I am doing this for the love of nylons and the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie.
We are very much concerned with this subject of the importation of nylon stockings into this country. It is a thing we do not wish to encourage. We have to say to ourselves, are we justified in taking some positive action to stop it? I think not. If we did we would cause a good deal of resentment and ill feeling, because the ban would apply equally to gifts coming from other parts especially of the British Commonwealth. I think that would be hard just before Christmas.
If we tried to discriminate we might even be accused of taking political action to which there could be objections. Certainly, if we tried to impose a ban upon imports from a particular territory, this in itself would only ease the situation from there while other territories would exploit it. If the hon. Lady suggests we should stop all that, it would have damaging results on our export trade generally and before we could agree—

Mrs. Mann: Surely it is not an honest export trade if the stockings are re-exported to this country. Surely that is a dishonest form of trading.

Mr. Bottomley: It is dishonest in the sense the hon. Lady mentions, but if there is a genuine export and the purchaser of it wishes to bestow it as a gift on a friend in this country, that is a reasonable thing and I do not think anyone would offer any serious objection. What we do hope to be able to achieve—it is difficult and we are carefully investigating it to see whether it is possible to do what the hon. Lady suggested—is to include these territories in the home market area. If that can be done manufacturers exporting to them would be in the same position as those who want to


produce for the home market and must produce sufficient for export to justify sales to the home market. If we can do that we can put paid to what my hon. Friends called "this nylon ramp."

Miss Irene Ward: May I ask whether any inquiries have been made in Gibraltar of the authorities there to ascertain if they have any information on this matter? The hon. Gentleman did not mention that at all.

Mr. Bottomley: Oh, yes. The Colonial Office have this very much in mind and have been consulting with the authorities in Gibraltar who are anxious to co-operate in this matter.

Miss Ward: Can the hon. Gentleman give the results of the investigation?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot give any specific information about results, except to say that there is the fullest co-operation.

9.17 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: There is a matter with which I have to deal in my constituency. In Portsmouth, we have a number of traders who also have businesses in Gibraltar and they have been pressing for a considerable time for permission to sell nylons in Gibraltar in competition with Indians and Gibraltese. So far they have not been allowed to sell nylons unless they sold them before the war. Consequently, I imagine that these people—and this is pure surmise—are allowed to import nylons into Gibraltar and, having imported them, cannot sell them except to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), and other ladies in this country.

Mrs. Mann: I must make my position perfectly clear. I would never dream of sending for any of these nylons, as I want the traffic stopped.

Brigadier Clarke: I am sorry. I was not suggesting that the hon. Lady was doing a dishonest trade with Gibraltar. I think she made it perfectly clear that she was not doing so. What I would draw attention to is the nylon-starved women of this country who obviously need nylons. As the hon. Lady pointed out in 400,000 cases re-imports have been inter-

cepted in five months and probably there have been a million re-imports intercepted in a year. Probably only one in four are intercepted and four million nlyons are going out and coming back here. Would it not be better to allow these ladies to buy nylons here, rather than let them go all the way to Gibraltar and come back again? I know it is a good thing to let wine cross the sea, but I have never heard that nylons are improved by a trip like that.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The Secretary for Overseas Trade, by the promised concession he made to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), placed himself in an impossible position. The number of nylon stockings flowing back to this country from Gibraltar is, I understand, no greater, relatively, than the number flowing back from any other Western European country. It is a known fact that one can go into any ladies' equipment shop from Gibraltar to the Arctic Circle and buy a pair of British nylon stockings. One may either post them back to this country, or bring them back by air, or by boat and, as long as one declares the stockings at the Customs and is prepared to pay both Import Duty and Purchase Tax on them, I understand that no misdemeanour or illegal act is committed.
However that may be, I believe that the Secretary for Overseas Trade, by saying that he intends to take definite and specific action in the case of Gibraltar, places his Ministry in an absolutely and unwarrantable position. Surely, if he intends to take specific action in the case of Gibraltar, he must take similar action in the case of Malta, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark or any other Western European country, which, as he rightly observed earlier, would probably be interpreted as political recrimination. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, to reconsider this matter very carefully, because I believe that the statement he made earlier this evening is unwise, misguided and misconceived.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Nine o'Clock.